[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: This bill amends the Railway Act to provide that members of his majesty's forces shall be carried free on all railway trains in Canada for the period of the war.	.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
12S
Redistribution



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if he is prepared to make a statement on Canada's gasoline rationing system, which it was announced some weeks ago was to go into effect on April 1. If not to-day, when may the house and the country expect a statement?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Preparations for the rationing of gasoline are proceeding, with the intention of bringing it into force on April 1. The need for this rationing is becoming more apparent every day as additional tanker tonnage is sunk along our coast and as the demands of the army services increase. The details will be announced shortly by the oil controller. It is a highly involved matter, and while I could bring the information to the house I think the purpose would be served equally well by the oil controller explaining the situation through the public press. I discussed the matter with him this morning, and I know it is his intention to take such action within the next day or two. If my hon. friend so desires I shall be glad to get the release and present it to the house before it is given 'to the press.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister not think it should come to the house first?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is rather involved, and I doubt if a reading here would help very much.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: In view of the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) regarding the population of the various provinces as revealed by the census, and in view of the effect thereof upon the membership of this house, will the Prime Minister inform us whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with redistribution at this session of parliament?
Perhaps I might be permitted to indicate my own view, in advance of his. It is that we shall probably have enough to do in attending to matters directly concerned with the war without undertaking this very onerous duty of redistribution.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I may say to my hon. friend that up to the present the government has not considered the matter but will do so in the light of the observations he has just made.



REPORTED SALE TO UNITED STATES BUYERS FOR LATER DELIVERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'App'elle):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based upbn a report appearing in the issue of the Winnipeg Tribune which came to hand to-day. This report states that Canadian wheat is being purchased by United States buyers for shipment south of the line after the opening of navigation; that warehouse receipts are being taken by the United States buyers, and that, according to reliable authorities, the wheat is being hedged in the Chicago market.
My questions are these: From whom are these United States buyers securing these warehouse receipts, since it- is cash wheat? Why is it being hedged in Chicago? What part did the Canadian wheat board play in these trades, and is there any possibility of this wheat coming into competition with the export of other Canadian wheat to the United Kingdom?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I 'shall be glad to give
attention to the questions asked by the hon. member and bring down a reply as soon as possible.



PRAIRIE FARM INCOME PAYMENTS-ORDER IN

[Stage Direction]
council p.c. 8126
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to draw attention to order in council P.C. 8126, dated October 22, 1941, but published only on January 23, 1942, in an extra edition of the Canada Gazette. My first question to the Minister of Agriculture is, why was the publication of this order in council so long delayed? What other steps were taken to bring its provisions to the attention of the interested public? The order in council provides for the expenditure of $20,000,000 by way of additional payments to increase the income of farmers in the spring wheat area of western Canada. I should like the minister to explain the real purpose of

Daylight Saving Time
this order in council, and the relationship of the payments to be made under it to the $35,000,000 provided under schedule B of Appropriation Act No. 4 of 1941. May I also ask him to tell this house why those provisions were made by order in council instead of being brought before parliament at its November sitting in the usual and proper manner.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better leave the answer until to-morrow. I am not familiar with the reasons why the document was not published at an earlier day.



DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to direct a question to
the Secretary of State. It has reference to the question of daylight saving. I should like to explain at the outset that I am not personally opposed to daylight saving, but in view of the situation as I understand it in eastern Canada I believe this question should be asked.
On Monday, Janua^ 26, order in council P.C. 547 was passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act, whereby it was ordered that as from Monday, February 9 next, until otherwise ordered, the time for all purposes in Canada shall be one hour in advance of accepted standard time. The order recites that on September 20, 1940, daylight saving time was continued for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and that the Secretary of State reported that it would be advantageous to the war effort of Canada to have daylight saving time observed in all the time zones in Canada.-
May I point out to the Secretary of State that the major part of that portion of Canada within the Atlantic standard time zone- roughly speaking, the portion of Canada lying east of the international boundary at the Saint Croix river-is now thirty-six minutes, as at Saint John, New Brunswick-ahead of true sun time; and to have Atlantic daylightsaving time imposed in that zone will put practically all the people of New Brunswick, and a great portion of the people' of Nova Scotia, ninety-six minutes ahead of true sun time. When the terms of the order were being considered, was any consideration given to that position? To-day we are in the happy position of substantially conserving daylight by thirty-six minutes, and are operating on the same time as the large central provinces, which is most convenient. It may be that 44561-9
other factors, such as transportation problems, time tables, and so on, affect the position; but as at present advised I suggest that the position be reviewed so far as it relates to the maritime provinces.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was good enough to give me notice of the question he has just asked. Unfortunately I have not had sufficient time to go into the technical matter he has raised, namely, the application of the order to certain sections operating on Atlantic standard time. There is one matter he suggests, however, which, I believe, cannot possibly be correct, namely, that whereas the western boundary of the zone of that portion of the maritimes which is on Atlantic standard time is thirty-six minutes faster than sun time, that condition would apply wholly throughout the maritimes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
because we are nearer that meridian. It goes out into the sea.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The thirty-six minutes
would be accounted for by its being nearer the westerly meridian where the time changes. In view, however, of the concluding sentence of my hon. friend's question I believe it would be better if I were to defer my answer until to-morrow or until the earliest possible opportunity.



ANTHRACITE COAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further question, directed to the Minister of Finance, and based upon order in council P.C. 394, dated January 20, 1942-just last week. This order in council, which was passed on the minister's recommendation, provides for the exemption from customs duties and war exchange tax of anthracite coal when imported into the maritime provinces between January 1 and April 30, 1942. I should like to ask the minister the reasons for the passing of this order in council, the reasons for restricting its operation to the maritime provinces, and also whether it is not anticipated that this exemption will discriminate against the coal producers and coal miners of the maritimes. May I ask also why this exemption, which expressly suspends a provision of an act of parliament, was made by order in council

Anthracite Goal

one day before the session was resumed? Why was it not brought before parliament in the usual and proper manner?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if I counted correctly, the leader of the opposition has asked four questions. I shall proceed to answer them.
He asks first why there has been an exemption of anthracite from customs duties on coal entering the maritime provinces. The reason is that the freight on anthracite moving by water is very much greater than it was a few months ago. If importers of anthracite coal are to be able to continue to sell anthracite under the price ceiling, something will have to be done for them. Assistance could be given to them either by way of subsidy or by way of tax or tariff remission. It was decided that tariff remission would amount to about the proper sum to enable them to continue to sell under the price ceiling. The same necessity does not exist in the case of anthracite into other parts of Canada, because it does not move by water as it does into the maritime provinces.	'


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does not all move by water to the maritimes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Pretty much. This applies only to anthracite moving by ship, waterborne coal which comes to seaports. It was considered it would be perfectly practicable to limit the concession to the maritime provinces, because there would be no danger of this coal coming into the martime provinces and then being loaded on cars and shipped to other parts of Canada.
With regard to any possible prejudice to producers of coal in the maritime provinces, as the hon. member knows, no hard coal is produced there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Quite so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe anthracite will be no more dangerous as a competitive factor in the coal situation now than it was before, when the ocean rates were so much lower than they are to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The fifty cents duty has kept some out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes, but freights were very much lower when the fifty cents was imposed.
With regard to the final question, as to why it was done by order in council, I would point out that it was done in that way pursuant either to the War Measures Act or to the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act; I am not sure which. Anyway, there was ample

statutory authority for proceeding, and it was done by order in council because it had to be done. If we had brought it before parliament on the first day of the session we would not have reached it for a long time. I do not know what else we could have done, because it was a budgetary sort of thing, and action could not be deferred until the spring or early summer. It had to be done right away.



RIGHT HON. ARTHUR MEIGHEN PRESS REPORT RESPECTING RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF THE SENATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I should like to ask a question with reference to a news item which appeared in the press not long ago. Is it possible to learn whether all the formalities in connection with the resignation of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen as senator have been completed; and if so, if his resignation has been accepted and, if so, if it is final?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware, all formalities have been complied with. Senator Meighen's resignation was tendered to His Excellency the Governor General. His excellency asked my advice with respect to the acceptance of it. I advised its acceptance. It has been accepted, and so far as I am able to recall, all the formalities were completed over a week ago.


Mr. POULIOT:: Thank you very much; very good.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government has given any consideration to the question of Friday evening sittings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to my hon. friend that for such time as I have been in this parliament the house has usually adjourned on Friday evening at the end of the first week of the session, and if it is accepted by the house that custom will prevail to-morrow by the government moving the adjournment. With respect to the session as a whole, I have every reason to believe that it would be advisable and would meet with the general approval of the house if we followed the practice of last session. Because of the war we are all working with a greater intensity of effort and

The Address-Mr. Bruce
have a much larger number of problems to deal with than has been the case at any other time. On occasions the government may wish to have the house continue its sitting on Friday night, but unless there should be a special reason for doing otherwise it is the intention of the government to have the adjournment moved each Friday at six o'clock.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health a question which I understand comes under his department. Has the government taken away all receiving and transmitting sets, cameras and firearms from all the Japanese residing in Canada?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): That would not come under my department. The only connection I have with that matter is the fact that I acted as chairman of a conference between certain gentlemen who came down here from British Columbia and a number of permanent officials of various departments in Ottawa. The question of firearms, cameras and receiving sets was discussed at the conference and a recommendation made to the cabinet. The Prime Minister issued a statement in regard to receiving sets and cameras, but whether or not actual action has been taken by the mounted police upon that enunciation of policy I am not able to say at the moment.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 28, 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.
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my address I should like to read two telegrams which I have just received. The first is from Mr. Lidstone, secretary of the Toronto business men's branch of the Canadian Legion. It reads:
Toronto business men's branch of the Canadian Legion in meeting strongly urge you to oppose plebiscite and to support legion policy of total war effort including conscription for overseas service.
The other is from Colonel C. E. Reynolds, president of the Canadian Corps Association It reads:
I ask you to request our Prime Minister to beg Churchill, Wavell and Prime Minister Curtin to hang on. Canada is voting in three months.
After listening to the excellent speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I could not help but regret that I too had not had the advantage of a legal training. May I congratulate them both upon the presentation of their cases. On the day that the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) spoke the press reported that both the Kiwanis club and the local council of women of Brantford had passed resolutions disapproving the proposed plebiscite. In addition the Brantford trades and labour council is reported to have wired the member expressing their disapproval. I venture to say that if he has had anything like the overwhelming mail I have had from my constituents he knows the extent of the support for compulsory selective service in his own riding. I think I am justified in saying that when the hon. member spoke on Friday last he was speaking as a supporter of the government rather than in his capacity of representative of those who elected him. I presume he spoke again for the government when he said, as reported on page 16 of Hansard:
Man-power for our army is not now our most pressing need.
If man-power for the army is not so urgent, why did the district commanding officer of military district No. 1, London, Ontario, write on January 6, 1942, to a married man with three children who had been rejected three times as unfit for service and put in category E, as follows:
1.	Some time ago you offered your services for enlistment into the Canadian active army but were rejected as being medically unfit.
2.	Recently, medical categories have been revised very materially and some causes for rejection completely eliminated.
3.	Your previous offer of service is appreciated and as the need for men 's now urgent, it is suggested you would wish to take advantage of this opportunity to have your medical status reviewed.
4.	If such is the case, would you be good enough to present yourself at Wolseley barracks, London, or St. Luke's barracks, Windsor, at your earliest convenience.
5.	If you have no way of getting to London, please advise this office or your nearest armoury, and an effort will be made to provide transportation.


Mr. CRERAR:: May I ask my hon. friend to whom that letter was addressed?
The Address-Mr. Bruce


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The man does not want his name announced. This is the original paper from the recruiting officer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend must know that he has no right to use communications in the house unless he is prepared to give full particulars of any name that will authenticate the document.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: For obvious reasons this man does not wish his name revealed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend cannot give the name, then he has no right to use the communication.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I do not propose to give his name.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The other day the Prime Minister gave the figure for our active army as 260,000. I am reliably informed that of the so-called active army, at least 60,000 men are not available because they are employed as home guards or on the staffs of training establishments or hospitals. Surely it is improper to include those men. I should like also to call attention to the fact that in our coast defence forces we have many men who are known as "R" recruits, men who have been called up under the mobilization act but have failed to volunteer for overseas service. In my judgment it is a misrepresentation to suggest that those men are active service units.


Mr. RALSTON:: I can assure my hon. friend that they are not included in the number on active service.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Of course I accept the
minister's statement. In reply to a question which I asked yesterday as to whether units of the sixth division would be available to go to the assistance of the United States if they were attacked, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said in part, as reported on page 109 of Hansard:
I want to say to him, however, that the units of these brigade groups would be available if it were considered advisable and necessary to send men to the United States, less any home defence personnel who were in those units who did not volunteer for that duty.
In other words, the commanding officer of these units would take his troops to the United States boundary, call a halt, and ask all "R" recruits to take three paces to the rear and drop out, since he could not ask them to serve outside Canada. If amongst these units there were several signallers, the line of communication would be put into confusion and our force rendered useless. Can anyone imagine a more ridiculous or perilous position for our troops to occupy? Would Great Britain be mobilizing

her women if she had not reached the limit of her resources in man-power? Would United States troops be landing in Ireland if manpower was not needed by Britain?
I am not unmindful of the contribution which has already been made by our factories and our shipyards and of the splendid part labour has played, and I wish to commend all concerned, which includes, of course, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) for what he and they have achieved. But speaking as one who is trying to run a farm I have the greatest sympathy and admiration for the farmers who- are still carrying on, producing foodstuffs in spite of the low prices and steadily mounting wages and the increasing difficulty in getting labour at all. Unless something is done for them it will have a serious effect on our food production programme-if we have one.
The hon. member for Brantford City compared our war effort with that of the United States. My answer to that comparison will be brief. The United States brought in universal compulsory selective service as soon as she declared war, and according to Mr. Winant, the United States Ambassador to Britain, speaking in London yesterday, the United States is now planning to have an army, not of 3,600,000, but of 7,000,000. The United States is preparing to attack; Canada is waiting to be attacked. Can anyone imagine a more humiliating position for any country to be in at this time of crisis, when within a few weeks the fury of the enemy will be descending upon us, to have its Prime Minister, knowing full well the needs after nearly two and a half years of war, transfer his responsibility to an uninformed electorate? When I heard the member for Brantford City supporting his chief, in spite of his declaration only a few days before that he was in favour of compulsory selective service, it reminded me of the story of another Macdonald, a Macdonald of revered memory at least on this side of the house. On one occasion when Doctor George Grant, then Principal of Queen's university, told Sir John A. Macdonald that he always supported him when he was right, Sir John replied: "The kind of support I prefer is that which is given me when I am wrong." Such a loyal supporter as the member for Brantford City' must be appreciated at this time.
Referring to his western tour last August, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as reported at page 47 of this session's Hansard, said:
At the time of my tour of western Canada, prior to my visit to Britain, an attempt was made to raise the issue of conscription. A cloud no larger than a man's hand appeared in

the political sky at Calgary and in some other of the western cities. I at once recognized that this was not due to a spontaneous movement on the part of the people themselves, but was rather the manifestation of a political movement carefully organized by opponents of the government, to force conscription to the fore as a political issue.
I wonder if the cloud to which he refers would not have been larger if his vision on emerging from the train had not been obscured by a large banner stretching across the street calling for conscription. The hostile reception which he received in that city, plus the selection of a new leader by the Conservative party and his immediate announcement of policy, plus the recent activities of an Ontario committee for total war, are given as reasons by the Prime Minister why he finds it expedient to have a plebiscite. But then he went on to say that the place to fight out this question is on the floor of the house. And later on he announced the plebiscite. I must confess that I am unable to follow his argument.
In his speech the other day the Prime Minister also said, at page 48 of Hansard:
Outside parliament altogether, the political skies have now become so overcast with controversy, promoted by high-pressure methods and highly financed publicity, that the nature and extent of Canada's war effort is not only being obscured, but is in danger of being seriously impaired.
No doubt the Prime Minister refers to the recent movement in the province of Ontario for total war by the immediate enforcement of unrestricted compulsory selective service. When the Prime Minister uses the term "political pressure," he means by that, I presume, pressure from his political enemies. Would he put Mr. C. L. Burton in this category, or Mr. James Y. Murdoch? I think I am correct in saying that they are both life-long Liberals, yet they were joint chairmen with Mr. F. K. Morrow, a patriotic citizen and a prominent Roman Catholic whose name will be found in every philanthropic organization. The committee was strictly non-partisan and represented practically every social and patriotic organization in the province. May I refer to just a few members of that committee?
There was Mrs. Wallace Campbell, president of the Ontario division of the Red Cross and dominion chairman of the Red Cross women's war work committee. I should like to pay tribute to the outstanding contribution made by Mrs. Campbell to Canada's war effort by the wonderful leadership she has given to many thousands of women throughout Canada. Other members of the committee were Mrs. W. B. Horkins, dominion president of the Imperial Order of Daughters
The Address-Mr. Bruce
of the Empire; and Mrs. H. D. Warren, dominion commissioner of the Girl Guides of Canada; Mrs. Maud Miller, Ontario president of the Provincial Council of Women; Dr. W. E. Gallie, dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Toronto; Dr. H. J. Cody, president of the University of Toronto; Bishop R. J. Renison, rector of St. Paul's Anglican Church, Toronto; Commissioner Orames of the Salvation Army; Sir Ernest MacMillan, president of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra; Hon. Mr. Biggs, a former minister of the Farmer-Liberal government of Ontario, Mr. Aubrey Davis, Mr. Elmer Davis, Mr. William Dry den, and Doctor Smirle Lawson, chief coroner for Ontario.
Do these names suggest political enemies of the Prime Minister and the Liberal party? I ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenize).
In referring to the work of this group of patriotic citizens, the Prime Minister speaks of the controversy being "promoted by high pressure methods and high financed publicity." What about the government's own political publicity advertising? What about the pamphlets, speeches and other things which are distributed, we are told, to 400,000 people?
I listened most carefully to the long and laboured effort of the Prime Minister on Monday last to justify the course he is taking. He failed miserably in his attempt to convince the public, as is evidenced in reading editorial comments and letters in the press.
I think I have shown that this demand for compulsory selective service comes not alone from Conservatives but from many of the Prime Minister's own personal Liberal friends. Does he not realize that it arises from a growing feeling of apprehension due to the extension of the war to this continent? Remember that the call from Ontario for conscription for a total war came after Japan's entry into the war.
Although the Prime Minister speaks of having first heard of this subject when he went west, may I remind him that I proposed it several months before in this house, and for my pains was severely rebuked by the Minister of National Defence.
In my opinion it is criminal folly, both from the standpoint of delay and that of dividing the country in the face of the enemy, for the government to hold a plebiscite at this time. How humiliated we must feel that recent events have justified the cartoon in the Montreal Gazette of January 23, wherein the Prime Minister is portrayed as a fireman in charge of the hose in front of a great conflagration, saying to his helper who is about to turn on the water hydrant, "Let's take a vote
The Address-Mr. Bruce

to see if we should turn it on full." Many of you have seen this cartoon; I do not suppose it will be reproduced in Hansard.
May I .say again to the Prime Minister that conscription was not an issue in the last campaign. How could it have been an issue when both leaders were in agreement? To make it an issue, surely one party must oppose what the other proposes. I had no occasion during my election campaign to refer to or make any commitment on the subject of conscription. The question then was whether the country would trust the present government to carry on the war, and the argument which the electorate apparently accepted was that it would be better that they should do so rather than change horses in crossing a stream. One of their slogans, I would remind the house, was "King or Chaos." We now have both.
The Prime Minister emphasized again his oft-repeated claim of preserving national unity. While I agree with the importance of this I am not in agreement with his method of bringing it about. In my view there is nothing which would promote national unity more than equality of service and of sacrifice for all; and per contra, there is nothing that would bring about a greater feeling of bitterness and disharmony than the knowledge that some sections of the community were bearing a greater share of the burdens and dangers in the fighting forces than others. There is nothing which will bring people more closely together than to share intimately and equally in danger and sacrifice.
Enjoyment of the privileges of citizenship in Canada carries with it the obligation upon all of defending their country'. I do not -mean that all available youth should necessarily go overseas to fight, but by compulsory selective service they would be placed either on farms, in the factories, or in the forces, wherever their special abilities would be most useful.
, Immediately following the Prime Minister's speech we had in this house striking evidence of disunity among his followers, and this in spite of the Prime Minister's announcement, following his three-hour caucus a few days ago, that "we have never had such a united and enthusiastic meeting". If this could be described as a "love-feast", what must the others have been like! I wonder what kind of "love-feast" they had at their caucus this morning.
I desire to commend the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray), as I know his constituents will do, for the courageous, manly course he took in following his conscience rather than the crack of the party whip. When he goes back home and faces his people he will be able to hold his head erect, knowing that he has faithfully done his duty.
fUr. Bruce.]
Already the much-advertised unity of the Liberals shows three serious cracks. And, forsooth, we are to have yet another French-Canadian party, led by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe).
The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) quoted a passage from my speech of last November, and from his remarks I take it that he did not know the meaning of compulsory selective service, which I thought I had made clear in June last. I will let one of his own countrymen reply to what he said in the house two days ago. I am going to quote from an open letter written by Captain Talbot M. Papineau, headed as follows:	"In the
Field, France, March 21st, 1916", and addressed to his uncle, Henri Bourassa, in which he says:
Those of us in this great army who may be so fortunate as to return to our Canada will have faced the grimmest and sincerest issues of life and death. We will have experienced the unhappy strength of brute force. We will have seen our loved comrades die in blood and suffering. Beware lest we return with revengeful feelings; for I say to you that from those who, while we fought and suffered here, remained in safety and comfort in Canada and failed to give us encouragement and support, as well as from those who grew fat with wealth dishonorably gained by political graft and by dishonest business methods at our expense, we shall demand a heavy day of reckoning.
We shall inflict upon them the punishment they deserve, not by physical violence, for we shall have had enough of that, nor by unconstitutional or illegal means, for we are fighting to protect, not to destroy, justice and freedom, but by the invincible power of our moral influence. Remember, too, that if Canada lias become a nation, respected and self-respecting, she owes it to her citizens who have fought and died in this distant land and not to those self-styled nationalists who have stayed at home
If Captain Papineau had written from our present army overseas he could not have better expressed the situation as it exists today than he did in 1916.
May I suggest to the Prime Minister that there is still another way out. He must already know that it is unnecessary for him to be relieved of his promise by eight of the provinces of Canada; for he knows full well where they stand. The Gallup poll of the whole of Canada was taken by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion, also the Toronto Star, and twenty-five other prominent newspapers of all shades of editorial belief, at the end of December last. The result was published in the Toronto Star as follows: sixty per cent would vote for selective service overseas; thirty per cent against; and ten per cent undecided or would not vote.
A recent survey by the Globe and Mail, with the cooperation of eighty-one weekly newspapers of the province of Ontario, was

The Address-Mr. Bruce
made to test the rural opinion on compulsory selective service anywhere, with the result that ninety-five per cent of the rural papers gave it as their considered opinion that there would be no objection from the farmers to compulsory selective service if the government made provision for farm labour.


James Layton Ralston: Will the hon. member put on the record the question that was asked? Has he the question that was asked?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: No, I have not the question.


James Layton Ralston: It is very important.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I will look it up.


James Layton Ralston: There was a distinct "out" for the farmer, as I remember it. My hon. friend might also put on the record the editorial of the Ottawa Journal with regard to that same poll. It would be informative.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Why, therefore, go to the expense and the disturbance to industry of testing public opinion in those eight provinces? If the worst comes to the worst and Quebec refuses to cooperate, then why not consider the suggestion of the editor of Toronto Saturday Night and exclude Quebec from the operation of the compulsory selective service act?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why exclude Quebec?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: What a time for a plebiscite, corresponding as it does with the announced intention of Hitler to launch his spring offensive? The Prime Minister and the party caucus will not escape the shame and humiliation attached to this cowardly decision. After this, how many will be able to hold their heads high before their constituents? Why ' not ask this parliament for a vote, which I feel confident it would certainly give, to absolve the Prime Minister from his improvident undertaking? What justification is there for asking the thousands of Canadians who did not vote for him in the last election to release him from his pledge? They may decline to vote when they realize that this might be improperly interpreted as a vote of confidence in his handling of the war. I think I would myself decline to vote unless the Prime Minister gave a definite undertaking to bring in compulsory selective service if he receives an affirmative vote.
The Prime Minister must know that there is anger and bitter resentment on the part of thousands of Canadians for the humiliating position in which he has placed them. May I suggest that he is taking a very dangerous course which might very well cause the rise of another William Lyon Mackenzie to lead a movement for responsible government.
If the Prime Minister is committed on conscription he is equally committed against a national government; consequently, if he is bound to proceed with a plebiscite he should also ask to be released from his commitment against a national government. We are asked at this time, the most critical time in the history of the world, to spend millions of dollars and delay our war effort-for what? Simply to save the Prime Minister's face- not to save Canada, mark you, but to save the Liberal party. Is it worth the price? On Monday the Prime Minister said, "I am being asked to sell my birthright for their mess of pottage." If by this he means his right to prevent this country from doing its obvious duty of reinforcing our troops overseas by equality of sacrifice, then I say to him that the life of one of our soldiers overseas is of more value than the political life of the Prime Minister.
I invite your attention, Mr. Speaker, particularly to what I am about to say now. We must reinforce our own brave men. Are we going to face the problem of getting recruits with folded hands, by doing nothing? We have asked these gallant men to go to the front, and they are giving their lives for us. Are we going to abandon them now? The government talks as if we were going to support them, but acts as if we were going to abandon them when the reserves are exhausted. I believe the people of Canada have the courage and the patriotism to respond to the need if they are told by the government what the need is.
Parliament is now in session and can enact new measures adequate to the situation if only the government will take hold of things. Surely in a crisis like this, when our men are falling at the front, pouring out their lifeblood this very day that Canada may be free, we are not going to sit silent, in apathy and helplessness. Men all over the country should make it known to the government that it is no longer our master but our servant, and that vigorous action must be taken to meet the situation.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend know that nearly ten thousand men have enlisted voluntarily this month, including some five hundred only yesterday?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: That is a very fine contribution. Now may I proceed?
There are many men all over the dominion, in every walk of life, men of both parties, who for two and a half years have been anxious to render war service, but the opportunity has never been given them by the government. In other countries they have used
The Address-Mr. Bruce

the best brains of all political parties. In this country the government has not even attempted to use the best brains, of its own party. How can the people of Canada put the war above every other consideration unless the government puts the war above all other considerations? Canada should have been doing a thousand and one things that she has not done to help the mother country, and she' might still do some of those things if the government would only lead or get out of the way and let somebody else lead. Let each of us put those things first which will help win the war; for that is a thousand times more important than any political party or a hundred political parties combined.
I have concluded that portion of my remarks to which I invited special attention. It may surprise hon. members to learn that the words I have just used are not my own. They were taken from a report appearing in the Globe of May 9, 1917, of an address before the provincial Liberal association in my own riding of Parkdale on May 8, 1917, delivered by Hon. Newton W. Rowell, who was an old and trusted friend of the Prime Minister; who was appointed by the Prime Minister as chief justice of Ontario and who was entrusted with the chairmanship of the commission on interprovincial relations, a commission which bore his name until illness caused him to resign, when the vice-chairman, Mr. Sirois, assumed the chairmanship. I can only add that if the Prime Minister has not the courage to perform the functions of the high office to which he was elected, then in all conscience he should step aside, as Chamberlain did and as Mr. Rowell invited Sir Robert Borden to do, and let some other war leader take his place.


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations on the question now before the house, in the first place I want to congratulate the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) on the splendid way in which he pronounced . the sentences which went to make up his carefully prepared essay. I think with practice his reading has improved very much, and if he continues to improve no doubt he will be able to give us leadership in how to read and how to pronounce the various sentences we have written out. He has done an excellent job in that regard.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Thank you.


William Henry Golding: I want also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address for the splendid speeches they made in introducing and seconding the motion.
In the speech from the throne itself, as was to be expected there is very little sunshine;
rMr. Bruce.)
and it is quite evident that we are going to be called upon to make further sacrifices from time to time. When we read the speech from the throne it is also evident that the government is making preparations to meet any emergency that may arise. I have listened to quite a number of speakers, and so far there has been very little complaint about the contents of the speech from the throne, with the exception of that part which states that the government is going to submit a plebiscite to the people in regard to a release from all commitments made before the election, during the election or since the election.
I want to state briefly but definitely my position on this question. We have in the cabinet, I believe, eight hon. gentlemen who are veterans of the last world war, some of whom still carry the marks of the wounds they suffered in that great conflict. Some of these hon. gentlemen have badges which were given them for distinguished valour on the field of battle. Some of them have sons, as many of the rest of us have, in the army, in the navy or in the air force. I know this question has been considered, not just for a day but day after day, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), by those members of the cabinet to whom I have referred, and by the other members of the government as well. They have come to a decision on what they believe to be the best course under the circumstances, and I am prepared to accept their judgment.
That is my first reason for supporting them in their proposal. I do not know why the Prime Minister should be singled out as the only one who has made commitments. Every member of this party, when he accepted the platform laid down by our leaders, by our cabinet, made commitments just as strong as those made by the Prime Minister himself. And for the life of me I cannot understand the position taken now by the hon. member for Parkdale. I believe he accepted the platform that was laid down by his leader, who headed a national government party; and having accepted that platform he made commitments just as strong as those made by his leader. I am in favour of this proposal because it not only relieves the Prime Minister of the commitments he has made but I would say it also relieves all hon. members on both sides of the house, though I cannot speak for the two independent groups, since I do not know what stand they took.
Under the circumstances I think it is the honourable and decent thing to do. I have been in public life in one way or another for some twenty-seven years, and I have always tried to be honest with the people who

The Address-Mr. Golding
elected me. I agree with the government in the action they propose to take now. It is up to the people themselves. If they want to relieve us of those commitments, well and good.
I should like also to take this opportunity to congratulate members of the cabinet upon the manner in which they are carrying on the work of their various departments. Especially do I commend the ministers who have been entrusted with the responsibility of organizing Canada's war effort. These hon. gentlemen are carrying loads such as perhaps few cabinet ministers have ever been called upon to carry. As a supporter of the government I take this opportunity publicly to express my confidence in them. I assure them we appreciate the effort they are putting forth to apply sound business principles in carrying out their task. We realize that if any scandal arose in connection with this tremendous job of prosecuting Canada's war effort, among others, the private members supporting the government would suffer. Therefore we should be grateful that we. have in the cabinet men who stand solidly for honesty and integrity in the great task to which they have set their hands. In the ministers who have been entrusted with the responsibility of organizing our war effort we have a group of men who hold1 our entire confidence and have, I believe, the confidence of the great masses of the people of Canada.
I take this opportunity also of paying what I believe to be a well-deserved tribute to the Prime Minister, who has endeavoured to give us efficient and honest administration. Canada is fortunate at the present time in having at its head a gentleman with the experience, ability and honesty of purpose found in our present leader. It was no surprise to me when he and his government received such splendid endorsation at the last federal election. Notwithstanding, however, that remarkable expression of approval by the people, there were editors of some of our important daily papers who both before and since the beginning of the war have continued their sniping, and who apparently are definitely determined to try to destroy confidence in the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues. There are some exceptions to that condition, of course. For example the paper which comes to my home at the present time, the London Free Press, has been most fair. The editor of that paper, Mr. Arthur Ford, deserves commendation for the manner in which he has played cricket ever since the country declared war on Germany.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: May I ask the hon. member a question?-and I am sorry to interrupt.


William Henry Golding: Let me finish.


Joseph Henry Harris: Would the hon. member also tell the house-


William Henry Golding: I would like to go on.


Joseph Henry Harris: -what the Stratford Beacon-Herald, in his own constituency, has had to say?


An hon. MEMBER:: You will have a chance.


William Henry Golding: I do not complain about constructive criticism, because in my opinion it is the finest thing we can have. Anyone who represents the public will appreciate that kind of criticism. But the kind I have in mind is criticism which is not based on facts, or, as in many cases, criticism based on facts which are grossly misrepresented.
For example, on the occasion of my coming to Ottawa in November, 1940, for the continuation of the adjourned session, before I boarded the train at Toronto I obtained a copy of the Toronto Globe and Mail. One of the first articles which attracted my attention-it was on the front page-stated that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was coming back from overseas empty-handed. It pointed out that he had been unable to come to any agreement with the United Kingdom government for the sale of our farm produce. Just what good was to be accomplished or what useful purpose was to be served by spreading a story such as that across the country at that particular time is something which for the life of me I cannot understand.
A short time ago, I believe about the middle of December, the same paper carried an editorial in which it pictured the Prime Minister holding out a delicious carrot, which represented senatorships, cabinet portfolios, judgeships and the like. It also described private members supporting the government as donkeys, crowding around, trying to get a bite out of the carrot. I would be disposed to say some nasty things about an offensive editorial of that kind-, but I take the view that if they are not ashamed of it, then surely there is nothing I could say which would have any effect on them. In my opinion the Prime Minister has on many occasions been most unjustly and unfairly criticized.
Because of what is happening now I would like to refer to what has happened in the past. We see at the present time an organized effort which hurls a barrage of criticism at the government and the Prime Minister, and which is definitely harming this country's war effort. That is my reason for referring to past events. We well recall the incident in September, 1938. when the position with respect to Czechoslovakia was so acute. On that occasion many of the papers I have in mind persistently demanded that the Prime Minister make a

The Address-Mr. Golding

definite stand, that he should make definite commitments. We were repeatedly told that all the dominions, with the exception of Canada, had done that very thing. A careful review of the proceedings in those other parliaments reveals that not one of them had made any such commitments. This fact was clearly established by the proceedings in the British House of Commons, on the occasion of a question being placed on the order paper in which it was asked if any commitments had been made by any of the dominions. The question was answered by a definite "no" from the then prime minister.
It is also clearly established that Great Britain herself was acting only in the role of mediator at that time, and was particularly anxious that no action be taken or no word be spoken which would prejudice the success of their efforts.
In view of these facts-and they are facts- I have never been able to understand the sense of the tremendous barrage of criticism which was hurled at the government on that occasion. The Prime Minister had stated his position time after time, in parliament and out of it. He said that in the event of a crisis which might involve this country in war, parliament would be assembled, and parliament itself must make the decision on such a momentous question. This promise was kept to the letter, and as a result Canada entered the war a united people. That history is now written, and surely it must be a source of satisfaction to look back and, in the light of all circumstances, appreciate the soundness of the position taken then by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has been criticized, too, for not taking a definite stand on important questions. I agree at once that he has not danced to the tune played by some of these super-wise gentlemen who, because they have been entrusted with the responsibility of writing a few editorials, think it is impossible for them under any circumstances whatsoever to err. But he acted at the proper time and in the proper place according to his judgment. I think it is generally conceded that over the period of years that he has been Prime Minister his judgment has been most remarkably sound. When this parliament was assembled on September 7, 1939, under circumstances most serious, the Prime Minister stated his position briefly but definitely-page 21 of Hansard- as follows:
We stand for the defence of Canada; we stand for the cooperation of this country at the side of Great Britain; and if this house will not support us in that policy, it will have to find some other government to assume the responsibilities of the present.

I think it was a source of satisfaction to him when he saw how many members from all sides of the house rallied to his support and to the support of the government by the strong stand they took. From that time in September until January in the following year, the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues endeavoured, by means of radio talks and press releases, to keep the people informed as to what action was being taken to organize our war effort. The radio talks and press releases were appreciated by the great majority of our citizens, but there were those who ridiculed the whole effort as nothing but political propaganda. The situation in which the government found itself at that time was simply this: if they remained silent, they were criticized; if they endeavoured to keep the people informed as to what was being done, that was called cheap political propaganda. It was no wonder, therefore, that the Prime Minister definitely decided to dissolve parliament when we met on January 25, 1940.
It will also be recalled that at that time the Prime Minister was placed by his opponents in the same category as Hitler for having, as they termed it, scuttled parliament. If we will just re-read the brief debate which took place on that occasion we will find that the Prime Minister stated that charges had been made that his government had lost the confidence of the people. Some of those charges were made in places which could not be ignored. He believed that if the Canadian people felt there was another party or group who could manage things better than the government was doing, then they ought to be given the opportunity of voting for that party or group. In view of that democratic statement and that democratic action I could never understand the philosophy of those who placed the Prime Minister in the same category as Hitler. Since when have we heard Hitler tell the German people that if they were not satisfied with his leadership they would be given the opportunity to select someone else to guide their ship of state?
I am not going to review the charges and counter-charges which were thrown back and forth during the last election, but there are some aspects of that whole discusssion which I think should not be overlooked. Every hon. gentleman who was a member of this house in 1939 will recall that a determined effort was put forth by a section of our press to discredit the House of Commons and create want of confidence in every member representing the people at that time. During the election a determined effort was made to destroy confidence in our party system of government. I should like to say a few words in reference to that.

The Address-Mr. Golding
I think we all remember the formation of the "Leadership league" in. the city of Toronto, which league was organized somewhat as the present "total war" committee was. The Leadership league apparently took unto itself the task of trying to improve the position of our people, which was of course a most commendable thing to do. Unfortunately it set out to accomplish that task by carrying on a campaign designed deliberately to create a lack of confidence in every hon. [DOT]member who sat in this house at that time. We were called politicians and the whole trend of their effort seemed to be to make people believe that we were a species of humanity which should be immediately exterminated. Efforts were made to make the people believe that we were not to be trusted. Reading between the lines we could see that we were accused of being far more concerned with the welfare of our parties than we were with the welfare of those who had sent us here to represent them. Efforts were also made to make the people believe that we had all made promises at election time that we had not the slightest intention of even trying to fulfil. That is the sort of campaign that was carried on by this organization against the members of the house at that time, and it was directed at all members.
In reference to this criticism I may say that I have attended quite a number of public meetings in my day, and I have heard those aspiring to office give an outline of the policies they would support if elected. Generally speaking I, think they did that very thing. In view of the criticism which was directed against the members of the house by this organization it is interesting to read the assurances that they themselves were giving, assurances which would make any of the speakers I have in mind look like pikers. I have here a clipping from the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 28, 1939, and I should like to read the following:
Count Your Problems
Government-How to reduce it.
Taxes-How to reduce them.
Public debts-How to reduce them.
Patronage-How to kill it.
Home ownership-How to save it.
Farmings-How to revive it.
Unemployment-How to beat it.
Railways-How to make them pay.
Resources-How to develop them.
Defence-How to speed it.
Freedom-How to guard it.
Unity-How to get it.
How was that to be done? All you had to do was sign your name on a little slip of paper and, presto 1 these problems would disappear. Wonderful, was it not?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Who was the head of that
league?


William Henry Golding: I am coming to that.
I think it will be recalled also that one of the present members of this house took a very active part in the formation of the Leadership league. This hon. gentleman had occupied a high and important position in the province of Ontario for quite a number of years, and I presume he felt that he had reached heights where as a statesman he could look down with pity on the weakness, the frailties and the ignorance of the ordinary member of parliament. I presume he felt that with his superior wisdom and knowledge he was the chosen one to lead us out of the darkness of the wilderness in which we were floundering, and into the light of the promised land. Naturally we expected a great deal in the way of leadership from that hon. gentleman when he came to this house; but if I am any judge at all, the house has been keenly disappointed.
Our first disappointment came when as a new member, sitting as a member of parliament for the first time in bis life, and that only for a few days, he took it upon himself to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should retire from the high office he was occupying and had occupied for a great number of years. The hon. gentleman ignored entirely the fact that the Prime Minister and his government had recently received the greatest endorsation in the most democratic way that any prime minister and his government had ever received in this country. One can hardly understand the mentality of a person who ignores entirely the expressed opinion of the people and sets himself up as one to dictate who should or who should not be prime minister of this country. Not long ago I saw in the papers that he was even dictating to our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends, telling them what they should or should not do.


An hon. MEMBER:: What a manl


William Henry Golding: I have been disappointed in the narrow, partisan speeches which he has made since he became a member of this house, the very thing he was denouncing when he was strutting his stuff in Toronto as leader of the Leadership league. We have been disappointed too in the fact that he has given no leadership at all in observing the rules of this house, which distinctly prohibit the reading of these orations of his from time to time.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: How many members have spoken in this debate without reading their speeches?
The Address-Mr. Golding


William Henry Golding: We have all heard it said, Mr. Speaker, by those who are anxious to destroy confidence in our parliamentary system of government, that there is no difference between the two old parties, that they only put on a sham battle at election time in order to divide the people, so that the successful party can carry on its programme of political patronage and political racketeering. That is the idea which a section of our press and some of our people are trying to instil into the minds of our citizens. Let me say at once that in any attempt to create such impressions as these, there is far more danger to our national unity and the future welfare of this country than those responsible for it imagine. When confidence is destroyed in our whole system of government, when a deliberate attempt is made to destroy confidence in the men and 'women who accept positions in public life and the responsibility that goes with it, the very foundations of democracy and of responsible government itself are undermined, and when that is accomplished we may well ask ourselves: Where do we go from here?
It is true, of course, that there are those in public life who do not conduct themselves in a manner which would warrant our confidence in them or confidence in the party or group with which they may be associated. That has been so in the past and in all probability will be so in the future. But that in itself places a direct responsibility on our citizens to be extremely careful whom they select to represent them in the administration of our public affairs. In my experience in this house during the past ten years I have found, generally speaking, that the members of all parties and groups are exceedingly anxious about and deeply concerned with the welfare of the people. It is true that we have our differences of opinion in regard to the best methods by which we can assist the people, but they are honest differences of opinion, not based on political expediency alone, as many would lead our citizens to believe. If we study the political history of this country I am sure we shall not come to the conclusion that those who have been our leaders in the past or are our leaders in the present are the kind of citizen who could be placed in the category of political racketeers. The very opposite is the truth. Those who have occupied the office of prime minister of this country qr that of premier of a province have all retired honourably from public life or have passed to their great reward with their praises on the lips of our citizens. Generally speaking they have endeavoured to give honest public service, and have been an inspiration to the young people of their day and generation.

But, sir, if a persistent effort is made to discredit everyone who accepts a position in public life, surely there can be no inspiration for our young people to fit themselves for the public tasks which someone must carry on.
I think a great deal of the criticism which is directed against governments arises out of the - fact that in all too many cases governments are expected to do the impossible, that they are expected to do things for the people which the people should do for themselves, and would be infinitely better off if they did. I remember after the close of the regular session of 1939 reading an article in the press which stated that parliament had prorogued without solving any of the problems with which it was confronted, but the article failed to point out that parliament had passed legislation dealing with those very problems. Such critics apparently fail to appreciate the fact that parliament is not an administrative body but a legislative body. While it is true that it is in parliament that laws are passed and policies enacted, it is equally true that those laws and policies are administered through departmental officials and other agencies. I know of no government which has solved all of its problems, nor do I know of any business concern which has solved all of its problems, or of any private individual who has solved all of his, for the very reason that new problems are continually arising. Governments have to face these new problems as they arise from time to time. The press feel free to criticize everyone who accepts public office, and that is right and proper, but even the press do not contend that they have solved all their own problems. As a matter of fact every decade since confederation has brought new problems for the press of this country to face, and some of these problems have made it exceedingly difficult for the press to carry on. But parliament does and can and always will deal with the problems that confront it from session to session.
There is another type of criticism to which I shall refer. I want it distinctly understood there is nothing personal in this, but it is a type of criticism which I think should not be encouraged. I am sure the house was shocked when one of its new members in his maiden speech made the statement that farmers never had received fair treatment from any government, and he gave as his reason for that statement that all governments had accepted campaign funds from the big interests, that they were bought body and soul before they ever started to function. This is a. serious indictment, one which involves not only the Bennett government and the present administration but previous governments whose

leaders have passed to their great reward- those of Sir Robert Borden, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir John A. Macdonald, and many others. It is a serious charge, and one wonders what evidence the hon. gentleman had on which to base such an indictment. One wonders, too, why anyone, particularly a farmer, should in season and out of season continue to support a party which he believes has never given the farmers a fair deal as a result of having been bought body and soul by the big interests.
No wonder that parliament as an institution is losing prestige and that respect for it is dwindling, when members will make such statements as these. The members making them have a conveniently short memory. We all remember how in 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government went down to defeat in an effort to improve the position of our farmers. At that time no one disputed that the so-called big interests were definitely opposed to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's policy of reciprocity. In our own counties of Huron and Perth there were five elected at that time, every one of whom was opposed to reciprocity, but I would resent the slightest insinuation that the people of those counties were bought or could be bought. As a matter of fact one of the things that has always made me feel proud to represent that constituency has been that its citizens cannot be stampeded in any way but think these things through for themselves, and then decide what is the best thing to do.
During the course of the campaign many catch-phrases were used, such as "No truck or trade with the Yankees". It was said that if reciprocity passed there would be two lines of rust running from the east to the west; and so on. These phrases and others of the kind did influence the people. I absolutely refuse to believe that the Canadian people or the Canadian government were "bought" on that or any other occasion.
In 1936, when the Canada-United States trade agreement was brought before this house for ratification, a lengthy and bitter debate took place. Every member of the official opposition opposed the agreement, but when the vote was taken it had the endorsation of the government, their supporters, and all the independents present. Will anyone suggest that the government, their supporters and the two independent groups in this house were bought body and soul when they voted as they did on that occasion? In 1939 we practically had a repetition of this vote. I remember well that one of those who vigorously opposed the passage of that agreement was the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). I
The Address-Mr. Golding
want to say that in my opinion there is no more honest and no more conscientious member in this house, and when he speaks for industry and the industrial worker he is speaking of something which is part of himself, because it has been part of his life's work. But, Mr. Speaker, nobody will make me believe that because he opposed those agreements the hon. gentleman was bought body and soul. This is a most unwarranted charge, one which could not be substantiated if a judicial investigation were held.
In the city of Toronto we have a financial sheet whose editors in my opinion have tried their utmost to discredit three outstanding veterans of the last great war, and so far as I know they are still carrying on in the same way. It is most unfortunate that when men and women are giving of their time and substance for the good of the country, the whole time of these people seems to be occupied in trying to discredit someone connected with the administration. About the only thing, it seems to me, they have to be thankful for as each day draws to a close is that another day has afforded them another opportunity to besmirch someone's reputation and standing. I am quite sure that if this government were bought body and soul by the big interests, opposition to them would not be coming from that particular source.
I have taken more time than I had intended to refer to these matters, but I feel very strongly about the prestige of parliament as an institution. I suggest to every hon. member that while we resent unfair criticism of the house and of its members, it lies within our own power to make this House of Commons a place which will have the respect and confidence of every one of its members and of every citizen of this country. I appeal to each and all to consider this his or her responsibility.
My advice to the government is to carry on efficiently and honestly, as they have been doing, the great task which has been assigned to them by the Canadian people.
There are many problems which, if time permitted, I should like to discuss, in connection with our farms, in the matter of taking boys off the farms, and as regards farm prices. But fortunately we have in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) one who is a farmer in my own constituency, who is operating a farm and making a success of it, and I feel free to go to him and talk over'with him any of these problems. I do not think therefore, that I should take up the time of this house in stating the case for the farmers of my riding. Also the Minister of National
The Address-Mr. Golding

War Services (Mr. Tliorson) and I were desk-mates for four or five years. 14 seems to me, therefore, it would be time wasted, for me to discuss these matters in the house when I have access to these ministers in. the manner that I have.
I appreciate, too, the responsibility which rests on the official opposition. I believe that in general they are trying to carry out honestly and efficiently the duties which fall upon them in this critical time. The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson) does occasionally hit below the belt, but I am not going to say anything more about that, and I know he won't expect me to say otherwise, because-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to say that I have never been accused of that before.


William Henry Golding: Well, that is the way I
feel.	_
I suggest to every party and group in this house that if we do what is expected of_ us by the Canadian people during this crisis, parliament as an institution and our whole party system of government will be honoured and respected.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, with the blare of political trumpets, both in the house and across the country, sounding out praise and condemnation of the government's plan of a plebiscite, it seems that other matters of. importance have gone into the background. Perhaps if I were to give way to my immediate impulse, I would have something to say about this plebiscite business, but I think I shall wait until the bill comes down and, for the present, deal with another matter which I consider to be of vital importance at the present moment.
The matter I have in mind has so far not been dealt with in this house since the commencement of the war. I refer to the relationship between Canada and the United States in respect of that country's defence of its northern frontier state in- the war with Japan. I refer, of course, to the United States territory of Alaska, our next-door neighbour to the north.
The house is aware of the fact that some years ago the President of the United States appointed a commission to investigate the possibilities of constructing a highway connecting the Pacific northwest with Alaska. I do not suppose that the United States in its administration is any more free from politics than is Canada or any other country, and I must confess that from my reading I have come to the conclusion that a good deal of political pressure was brought to bear upon

that commission, appointed by the president in connection with its work. From my reading I have reason to believe that the work of the United States commission on this Pacific coast route to Alaska was complicated by political considerations. To say the least, it did not take into account any possibility of impending war with Japan. I am quite aware, of course, that the intention in the first place was to have a tourist highway connecting Alaska with the western states of Washington, Oregon and California. I know full well that the tom-ist idea was what all those who were interested in the matter were concerned about.
I should like to read the names of those who were appointed on the United States commission. Of course, this has nothing to do with us directly, though indirectly it has. The chairman of their commission was Congressman Warren G. Magnuson, of Seattle, Washington. There was also Doctor Ernest Gruening, director of division of territories of island possessions of the Department of the Interior at Washington. That was a good appointment. There was Donald McDonald, engineer, Alaskan Road Commission, Fairbanks, Alaska. Perhaps that was a good appointment. There was Mr. J. W. Carey, Public Works Administration, Portland, Oregon. I read these names only to show that the idea of the commission and its work was specifically to run this highway from Alaska to the western coast states of the United States.
Following that, a Canadian commission was appointed by the present government. This commission was appointed on December 22, 1938, pursuant, of course, to the United States action in appointing their commission. I should like to read the personnel of our Canadian commission. I think it is interesting. The chairman of that commission was the Hon. Charles Stewart, whose address is given as Ottawa, and there were Brigadier-General Thomas L. Tremblay of Quebec; J. M. Wardle, Department of Mines and Resources, Ottawa; Arthur Dixon, Department of Public Works, Victoria, and J. W. Spencer, whose address is given as Vancouver.
I am not going to criticize this severely, but I would point out that at any rate Mr. Spencer is secretary-treasurer, I believe, of the David Spencer Company of Vancouver and Victoria, one of the largest department store institutions on the Pacific coast. It goes without saying that these men are interested in having that highway go along the Pacific coast, through British Columbia, to the north, eventually reaching Alaska. Naturally, they are going to be interested from a business point of view, and perhaps no business benefits

The Address-Mr. Hansell
from the tourist trade more than does the department store business unless it is the oil and gas business.
I discover in my study of this whole matter that no consideration whatever was given to any other route to Alaska than the British Columbia route. In fact, certain representations were made to our Canadian commission from people in Alberta, but the commission refused a hearing. This is from the report of the commission:
Requests were also received for meetings at Edmonton and Fort MeMurray to enable the representatives of those places to present the views of their people as to the advantages of a route through Alberta to the Yukon and Alaska. The commission found it impractical to accede to these requests, the order in council creating the commission specifically confining its consideration to routes through British Columbia.
That commission was appointed in December, 1938. It did not begin its work until July, 1939; the war broke out in September, 1939, and the government here, in setting up this commission, gives them strict orders to confine their investigation to the one route in British Columbia. They could not consider any other route. The government must have been aware that there were other routes to Alaska which were just as accessible and through which it was just as easy to put a highway as any route in British Columbia; yet once again, such was the lack of foresight of the government, that the commission was impaired in its work.
There have been developments since then. I know, and I have already recognized, that what was in the minds of both the United States government and1 the government here was to have a tourist highway. But as late as May, 1941, Congressman Magnuson of the state of Washington, who was chairman of the United States commission, recommended the immediate construction of this highway from a military point of view. I read from a press dispatch from Washington dated May 23, 1941:
Immediate construction of a $25,000,000 highway from the United States through Canada to Alaska, approximately 1,600 miles, as a precaution against invasion from Siberia, was .recommended to State Secretary Hull Thursday by the Alaska international highway commission. The commission's report, made public by its chairman, representative Magnuson (Democrat, Washington), said that Russia, if so disposed, could attack from existing bases in Siberia.
From that dispatch you will see, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the commission must have realized that there was impending danger of a military nature in connection with that northern outpost of America; yet his commission studied only the British Columbia
route. What actually happened? General Marshall, United States army chief of staff, rejected the British Columbia route as being unsound from a military point of view.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Where is that remark of General Marshall's found?


Ernest George Hansell: I saw that in a press clipping, which I might read. This is a dispatch from New York dated December 17, 1941, in which these words appear:
-General Marshall, army chief of staff, rejected the long-cherished dream of a highway to Alaska.
Of course that is just part of the dispatch. Mr. William Albee, who was considered a specialist on Alaska and the Yukon, and who was the author of the report of the Magnuson commission, was called before the federal planning board, and this is what he said, which, by the way, is from the same New York dispatch dated December 17, 1941:
The Alaska highway commission's work was complicated by political considerations and took no account of war conditions. . . . Its primary objective was to build a road linking the important coast towns of Alaska with the American west coast area. It developed into a Seattle-to-Juneau log-rolling junket.
Further on, he says, referring to a route east of the Rockies:
Our present estimate is that if the work of moving in the road-building equipment is begun before the end of January-
January is here now.
-there can be a road built to the Bering straits and military trucks rolling on it at express speed before the winter of 1942. With the Russians doing the same kind of work on their side of the Bering straits-and I was given to understand in Washington that this is an integral part of the project-we can carry out an encirclement move against the Japanese from positions in Japan's front yard, back yard and side yard instead of from thousands of miles away as at present.
That was before the outbreak of war between Japan and the United States. Just what are the immediate needs? This entire matter must not be regarded too lightly. With Japan entering the struggle and the United States compelled to take action, let us make no mistake about it; the north American continent is in danger. I think British Columbia is in danger. I am glad to see the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who comes from Vancouver, in his seat. Perhaps he knows moire about this than any of us. I said British Columbia was in danger. The Yukon is in danger. Alaska is in danger; and while I am dealing with this point, I would remind hon. members that it
The Address-Mr. Hansell

would not take very much to isolate British Columbia completely from the rest of civilization.
I do not know if we altogether realize the position. Many hon. members come from Ontario and Quebec; indeed, from the point of view of membership, Ontario and Quebec control this parliament. But there are several great provinces out west. I wonder whether hon. members realize the situation. There are only two railways and one highway going into British Columbia. All that is necessary, whether it is done from the air or by sabotage, is to blow up a couple of bridges on those railways, or cave in one or two tunnels, and British Columbia is absolutely isolated from the rest of Canada. You would not be able to move a machine or a soldier to that province.
I do think-and I have had this in mind for some time-that this parliament should1 know exactly the situation that exists in British Columbia in relation to the entry of Japan into the war. I believe the Prime Minister [DOT] should meet with us in a secret session and tell us exactly the situation that exists in British Columbia. He should tell us exactly what defences we have there. He should tell us exactly the number of men we have there in the army and air force. He should tell us the number of planes and equipment we have there. He should confide in this parliament in connection with these matters. I am exercised about this thing; it is serious business. Not only are these territories in danger -British Columbia, the Yukon and Alaska- but, as Mr. Albee said or implied, as a piece of military strategy the cooperation of the three nations, the United States, Canada and Russia, in carrying out an encirclement move against Japan by means of a highway to Alaska, is most essential at this time.
I do not wish to suggest in one breath that certain political pressure was brought to bear upon the governments and commissions, and be interpreted as going a bit political myself in the next breath. If I wished, I could recommend that such a highway run through southern Alberta, because that is where my constituency is located.


Mr. GERSHAW:: It should be through Medicine Hat.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Medicine Hat says it should run through there. All right, I'have no objection to that. If I liked, I could recommend that the highway run through my constituency and also through the rich Turner valley oil fields located therein. But I am not going to

suggest anything of the kind. It does not make any difference to me whether the highway comes through Coutts or Sweet Grass and through southern Alberta, or whether it comes through North Portal and thence through Saskatchewan or, if you wish, through Emerson and up through Manitoba. But I do say that such a highway must connect with the industrial areas of the United States, and must run north by way of Edmonton.
Perhaps one of the greatest authorities on the north and defence projects in northern territories, a man who has been called in to advise United States defence authorities, without question favours the route from Edmonton, north. I refer to that eminent arctic explorer, Doctor Vihjalmur Stefansson. What does Doctor Stefansson say? I read from an interview with him reported in the Philadelphia Record under date of May 20, 1941. It states in part:
Of the four routes to Alaska that have been proposed, any two could be built for less than half the cost of one battleship; the least difficult to construct could be built in half the time required to turn out a battleship. This latter inland highway, Doctor Stefanssen says, would reach Alaska via Edmonton, Alberta, and the Mackenzie river, and would be largely self-fueling, since it would skirt two extensive petroleum fields, the tar sands of the McMurray district of northern Alberta and the oil region of Fort Norman on the lower Mackenzie. . . . Impartial analysis of the four routes from the military defence point of view seems to indicate that, although one of the two coastal routes might be advisable for communication purposes if two roads are to be built, the inland route through Alberta -would be by far the most valuable in the event of war and would most certainly be the choice of army officials if only one highway were to be built.
The article goes on with further explanation, and I am told from authoritative sources that there is no reason why that highway could not be started now. There are tractors going through that north country every winter, hauling huge machinery of one kind and another, while the ground is still frozen.
I would recommend that a new commission be appointed immediately. The old commission is now defunct; it is dead; it has finished its work. I do not know how much it cost, but in the light of events which have since occurred, its work was absolutely worthless. As a matter of fact, the commission itself is not certain as to whether or not it should recommend a highway. May I read one part at the conclusion of its report. This is contained in a press release handed out after the report was submitted:
It agrees also with the opinion expressed by its engineering members that it is not practicable to offer a sound recommendation to the

The Address-Mr. Turner
government either as to the merits of any of the alternatives of the "A" route or the comparative value of the "A" route and the "B" route-
Both of which, by the way, are British Columbia routes.
-and it agreed with the recommendation that provision be made for further field work on the "A" route in the season of 1940, as outlined in the engineering reports.
In view of recent developments, there is no use in bothering with that commission now; there is no use even in thinking of putting a highway through British Columbia now. I would recommend, therefore, that a new commission be appointed immediately, that the members of such commission be entirely unprejudiced politically and from a business point of view. I would recommend, however, that the ministers of highways or their appointees in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and perhaps Manitoba, be on the commission, or appear in an advisory capacity. They know the machinery; they know the territory. Routes have been surveyed, and they are the men who can give information. I would urge that they be instructed to dispatch their business with the most careful thoroughness, but with the greatest haste. They should be instructed to see that the right machinery is moved in as soon as possible, while the ground is frozen, and that they seek to have the work done this year.
In the light of development in the Pacific, the importance of such a move cannot be stressed too forcibly. The danger is clear; no time should be lost. It is not sufficient to say that the United States fleet will protect the northern part of this continent. Since the wTar began, the unexpected has happened more than once. One of the greatest fleets in the world was outmanoeuvred in one of the most surprising pieces of naval strategy. I refer to the invasion of Norway. Let us not be asleep or fooled in this matter. Let not the governrrient blunder here. We have had our Hong Kong; we have had our Dunkirk. Let us be aware, and act now with respect to this highway to Alaska, lest we have our Norway on the north American continent.


Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on what seems to be the topic of the day, namely conscription, and also something about the plebiscite which will come before our people shortly for their endorsation or rejection. I do not, however, believe I could do any better to illustrate my views than to say that after studying public opinion for some time very closely I have found that it would require considerable research to discover the origins
of what might be called the Toronto movement of uplift and control. There are probably traces of it right back to the days of muddy York. But it is within the last thirty years that it has really come into its own, attracting the attention of the outlying masses and drawing from them due and fitting comment and, at times, appropriate action. The full record of its activities must be left to the admiring historian, but in the short time at my disposal at least a note or two can perhaps be made.
It begins with 1935 when the best people, who are the life and soul of the movement, appeared on the streets and in the haunts which they frequent, wearing nice red, white and blue rosettes calling for national government. The laudable purpose for which national government was desired was to trim down the Canadian National railway by tearing up hundreds of miles of rails and to turn over what was left to the management of people of whom the movement approved. An unsympathetic public opinion failed lamentably to respond, and the great project failed.
But the dauntless spirit which inspires these drives did not long remain depressed. There followed, after a brief interval, the Leadership league. Surely this noble and inspiring experiment has not so soon been forgotten. This was directed towards creating in the outlying and dependent areas watchful committees which, under direction from the head office, would see to it that the elected representatives obeyed instructions-or else! In the latter event they would be replaced at the next election by more malleable material. How unfortunate it was that when an election occurred a little later, there was no Leadership league to exercise control and give direction, with the lamentable result that there were elected in large numbers members of whom the movement disapproves. But what had happened to the Leadership league? Why, it had died untimely of a combination of troubles-teeth-cutting, convulsions and infantile paralysis. Very sad, very unfortunate!
But again there was a rallying of the broken forces. This time it took the form of the Ontario voluntary constabulary association. Headed by one whose eagle eye can see treason and a disposition towards subversive action through any number of closed doors, it stripped for action with all the necessary accoutrements, uniforms, passwords, secret gatherings, training in manoeuvres. How it happened that despite the distinguished approval of the attorney general of Ontario, it wilted and died before it had a single scalp to its credit-not one person was landed in gaol-is a mystery, but this is indeed the melancholy fact. It only illustrates what a tough world this is for noble experiments.

2'he Address-Mr. Turner
But it is not altogether a record of failure. There are bright spots of achievement. Con-spicious among these was the performance of the hijacking commando in its surprise attack upon the Conservative committee of organization in Ottawa in November. In a movement of rapid action, which puts to shame recent tactical performances in other fields, they took the committee into captivity, put chains on it, and provided it with a leader who embodies all that the movement yearns for and demands. Some lads from the west who went to Ottawa to deal with the business that the meeting was called to consider, have been showing a most mutinous spirit, writing to the papers in protest and that sort of thing. But they might as well understand that if they want to stay with the grand old party, they must wear the yoke of submission. Toronto will supply the leader, make the policies and, if the miracle of victory happens, distribute the spoils on the basis of rewarding home virtues first.
The zeal, alertness and determination with which subversive ideas and tendencies are detected and trodden on has often been demonstrated, and this has never been more in evidence than right now. The approved missile in these cases is the manifesto. A memorial with the names of a few leading figures attached is considered to be a formidable weapon; though it must be sadly admitted ' that the results do not seem to bear this out. Within the last few days it has been found necessary to issue such a manifesto. Within twenty-four hours of the appearance in the Newr York Times of a dispatch indicating that Canada was taking a direct part in the proceedings of the allied war council, there was action on the Toronto front, showing how watchful and determined they are in resisting revolutionary change. Let Canada send her representations to London in the good old colonial style, and if London graciously approved, they might then go forward to the allied council. Thus said1 the manifesto; such was the demand of the alert watch-dogs. Good old blimps!
All these movements and activities, all these champions of "what Toronto says must be done" have now come together in a grand crescendo of demand, affirmation and denunciation by the device of the committee for total war. All their names are appended to the latest manifesto. Here are to be found the signatures of the National government leaders, the Leadership leaders, the voluntary constables who rallied to save Canadian civilza-tion, the wrecking brigade that stormed the Ottawa Conservative meeting, the alarmists

who issued the warning against Canada trying to act like a nation. Here they are pigging together, heads and points, in the same truckle-bed, as the eminent Mr. Burke would say. And with them, selected individuals from outside points who have joined in the great crusade.
The purpose of the great crusade is to do their thinking for the elected members of parliament, inform them as to their duties and instruct them in their performance when parliament meets. It is only necessary to see the two hundred names attached to the manifesto and to read its text, to realize that the Leadership league managed to leave a descendant.
It has to be recorded with pain that in calling in the outsiders, two slips were made. Two of the hand-picked membership turned out to be dissentient. One of these indicated an inclination to think that perhaps the members of parliament in intelligence and patriotism were the equals of their would-be instructors and could be relied upon to make their own decisions. But the gentleman who made these observations, only having served the country with distinction in both the Ontario legislature and the dominion parliament, and in the high office of attorney general of Ontario, was obviously not in the same class with the distinguished amateurs who had matters in hand. Moreover, he comes from Kingston, where the vice of independent thinking is still practised.
The other dissenting voice-that of a woman who had served at Ottawa in five parliaments -showed a similar lack of understanding of the technique of the movement. She actually had the crude idea that they ought to know who was putting up the money. Ought she not to know that this information is given only in camera? Clearly, it is a case of back to the wilds of Grey county for the lady-she is not yet acclimated to Toronto standards.
It is very regrettable that discordant voices should be raised not only in the gathering itself but outside in the waste spaces, in doubt, in derision and in repudiation. I have here, for instance, a newspaper which has the audacity to deny that the movement is the outcome of a spontaneous spasm of anguished patriotism-a low-down sheet that dares to say that the great rally "appears to have been just about as 'spontaneous' as the drafting of Mr. Meighen for the Conservative leadership." But this newspaper is published in Kingston and is under the blight of that town.
Meanwhile, the great movement is well under way with drums beating, flags flying and men shrieking. It has posh quarters in the

The Address-Mr. Turner
Royal York, which is a quite elegant hostelry. It is not thought there will be any trouble about the rent.
If I did not say another word and took my seat now, I think the whole story would be just about told of how a group of racketeers from a city named Toronto got together and I am informed by many people of Ontario that they have had that province in their hip pocket for some time and also have had the lead-off man in that province over a barrel so long that he has become warped. But that gang are not satisfied with that; they are aiming to get control of Canada itself. They are pounding away on the word "conscription" in order to rile up the people. They are using that method just as a means to gain their real objective, namely, the ousting of this government and the gaining of control at Ottawa. In all sincerity I question whether that group is as much interested in conscription as they are in gaining [DOT]ontrol. I might say that I am referring to the people in Toronto-I understand there are some good people there-and not to the members of the house. If the matter were brought out in the open from behind the bush, we would find that conscription is just camouflage, that the pay-off is control.
If ever we needed unity in Canada, we need it now. That was emphasized quite strongly by the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald.) But I shall have to be shown how we can have unity when one city is trying by every means possible to dominate and control the rest Of Canada and is continually belittling and torpedoeing our war efforts, which the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, termed as magnificent.
Let us get right down to the marrow of this question regarding this countermovement organized by the so-called money manipulators. Why has this clique been continually out to get the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his government? 'What is their real reason? It is simply that they know full well that they cannot bulldoze, stampede, railroad and muscle in on our present Prime Minister. That is what is burning them up. That is what is eating out their hearts. He is not a "yes" man. For once they cannot get their own way regardless of how much money they have or control. That is the real reason.
If there is one quality our Prime Minister has, it is that he is always cool, cautious and careful. To some he may seem to be a little slow at times, but it is just as well that he is that way. He has those qualities, and I am proud that he has them, particularly during a period of war or any other crisis.
Now, a few words about the plebiscite. I have always been taught that a promise made is a debt unpaid. On many occasions the Prime Minister has said that he would not enforce conscription unless he first consulted the people. I made the same promise on many occasions during the last election. The Prime Minister and the government are now seeking to carry out that pledge and are appealing to the very people themselves. Is that democracy? What is wrong with it? Time and time again we and others have condemned Hitler and Germany for breaking pledges, treaties and pacts, but when this government seek to carry out theirs, they are condemned.
Let us never forget that the people are the highest court in this dominion, and that they are our masters and we are their servants. Should that situation ever change, then the heart and soul of democracy is destroyed. I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that holding a plebiscite is the honourable course for this government to take at this time, and I commend them for so doing.
Now I want to say, Mr. Speaker, what I think would take place in Canada if ever those sharks in Toronto got control here. About the first thing to happen would be the wiping out of the excess profits tax. Away would go the price-ceiling idea, and the sky would be the limit so far as profits on war equipment are concerned. On that very point let me say that maybe this is what that gang mean by "total war effort"'-get everything out of this war that it is possible to get, because the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, whom this group has forced in as leader, speaking on that very subject in the other chamber on December 6, 1940, is reported by the Senate Hansard of that date, page 62 of the Senate Debates, to have said:
I have no sympathy with those who would tax profits at 100 per cent. People will not work for nothing. Human nature is the same in war time as in peace, and instead of helping the war effort you are defeating it by stripping people of the stimulus to toil and run their business right. Leave the incentive, and make the reward greater the greater the toil and the greater the success. You have to do that. You do not do it under this bill. I do not exaggerate at all when I say that I have had business men by the dozen tell me that they are leaning on their oars; they have nothing to work for. They say: "We might just as well take it a little easier now, for we are only working for taxes anyway."
We are all familiar with the song, "Roll out the Barrel." You have heard it many times, Mr. Speaker. That would be played again if those gentlemen'got into power; only then it would be, "Roll out the pork barrel," instead of the beer barrel, and I should be -very much
The Address-Mr. Turner

surprised if under the control of Toronto our army would1 not soon resemble the Mexican army of a few years back when there were no privates and every soldier was a general or an officer. Those are only a few of the things which we might expect if the Toronto outfit should take control, but I am not afraid to trust the people of Canada to see that that shall never take place.
While I am on my feet, I want to pay a tribute to my district, which was well represented in the great battle for the defence of Hong Kong against overwhelming odds. Their stand in that battle will go down in history as equal to any made by gallant, courageous troops in any other war, past or present.
So much for the question of conscription and the plebiscite.
As food has been mentioned in the speech from the throne, I take this opportunitv to make a few observations with respect to wheat. I did not oppose the wheat policy of the government last year because I understood it was just a temporary policy, just trial legislation for one year only. But I must say to the government at this time, when we are all striving to preserve unity to the utmost in Canada, that we must, above all else, keep a proper economic balance right across the entire country, and I am sorry to say that that balance does not exist to-day. Due mainly to war contracts and government subsidies for plant extensions, and so forth, which I know are necessary, eastern Canada, particularly Ontario and Quebec, has the big end of it financially, and quite naturally they are having a great boom in business generally and are enjoying a period of prosperity. This is easily proven by a report in the Toronto Globe and Mail-there is Toronto again-of January 27, 1942, where I find this headline: "A surplus of $600,000 for Toronto." But, Mr. Speaker, what of the western provinces, those all-important wheat-growing areas? Almost the opposite is true. The farmers are striving and labouring to keep their heads above water, to keep going and stay off relief. That is what I refer to when I say that there is not a proper economic balance right across the country.
If we could weigh it on the scale, the indicator would show that the balance overwhelmingly favours the east. When a situation of that kind arises, it is up to the government immediately to take action. In addition to what I have already said, let me show how, by our action here in setting up a schedule of prices for labour on war projects, and so forth, and providing a minimum wage of forty-five cents an hour, plus cost 
of living bonus, which is little enough, we have automatically made it tougher for the farmer.
Here is the farmer's situation now as I see it. We first of all guarantee him seventy cents a bushel for his wheat, No. 1 northern, basis Fort William. That is not enough, particularly during war time. It will be noted that the price in the United States for May wheat is S1.30J at Chicago. We tell the farmer that he must sell his wheat only at the point of delivery stipulated in his permit. But we have done more than that. As I have just said, we have automatically raised the price of labour which the farmer must have, particularly during the all-important harvest season, to forty-five cents an hour. No farmer can pay forty-five cepts an hour for labour on seventy-cent wheat, plus bonuses, but less freight and dockage. Therefore we are clipping the poor farmer at both the top and the bottom. He is being pocketed by our own action. Let me give an illustration.
I was present at the beginning of the harvest season last year when an order came through for 1,600 men at $3 perhaps $3.50 a day, plus board, et cetera, and not one man of the hundreds present came forward. I personally spoke to many of those men, and their answer was that they wanted to get a job in a munitions factory at forty-five cents an hour. During the harvest period last fall I took a trip through part of my riding, and on one farm I saw a poor old lady, sixty-five years of age, on top of a grain stack, working away there when she should have been at home listening to the radio or at least doing some easier job. On another farm, on the next section, I saw a little girl twelve years of age driving the tractor, while her father operated the power binder behind. He told me that he had tried his best to get help, offering $4 a day, but had not been able to secure it. That little girl should have been out playing. I am sure she must have been tired at night.
I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and to the government that the farmer be given, say, $1 a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat, not at Fort William but at the point of delivery. If all the farmers of Canada are taxed equally and contribute equally to the treasury of Canada, why should they not withdraw from that same treasury share and share alike? No farmer should be penalized by the difference in freight rates just because he happens to farm a little farther away from Fort William than another farmer. Just as a further suggestion, the government might, if it so desires, consider paying that $1 a bushel on the first

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
1,000	or 2,000 bushels only, and then scale the price down from there. Such a plan would certainly take care of the thousands of the smaller wheat farmers all over western Canada.
I know the Minister of Agriculture had a job on his hands last year when we had such a large carryover of wheat, and with the new crop coming in, nevertheless I think we should simplify our national wheat policy and make it easier for the farmers and everybody to understand by considering cutting out the wheat acreage reduction plan, bonuses, et cetera; and tell the farmer what he is going to get in cash on the line, and let him store his wheat, if he wants to, on the farm and pay him for it. The machinery set up under the wheat acreage reduction plan is all that is necessary to take care of the inspection and so forth that would be required.
Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the minister and to the government, and particularly to the Prime Minister, who represents a farming constituency in Saskatchewan, the province which produces the most wheat of any province in Canada, to give the poor farmers of western Canada the assistance necessary to keep up their very important end in our war effort and at the same time to bring about a better balance across the country generally, which in turn will create greater harmony and certainly a higher degree of unity in Canada from one end to the other.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, when there is something on your mind the sooner you get it off, the better for yourself.
In opening my remarks I should like to congratulate not only the mover and the seconder of the address, but also the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), who I am sorry is not in his seat and the leaders of the other groups, who have been so constructive in their suggestions that one would almost think they were Liberal-Progressives.
To touch first upon what, to me, is the most important subject, I will say a word on the plebiscite. Neither in the last war nor in the present one have I felt that I could tell a young man that he should sign up, nor have I ever allowed my better half, as far as I could control her, to send a white feather to anybody. First, God gave that boy his life and to God he is responsible. As the old Book says, "the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit... .unto God who gave it"-not to the government. Second,
because if you put a soldier's uniform on a coward you cannot make him a soldier against his will, any more than you can put a gown on a profligate and make a saint out of him, or by painting a pump, change the water. I would add, as another reason, that it has been my sad duty on more than one occasion to break the painful news of a loved one missing or gone beyond. Just before I came to Ottawa I had to bring the news to a young wife, to the mother and father and family of one of the finest young men at the head of the lakes-where they are as good as any in Canada-a Christian young man and a first-class athlete, that he was missing, and when I saw the effect on the parents and the wife, I felt that I was not going to take the responsibility of telling anybody that he must enlist. But I was extremely proud that my own boy enlisted before he told me of his decision, and whether, when he goes into the air he comes safely down again, or his spirit soars up and beyond, is less to me than the consciousness that he is "white" all the way through. But it is my duty to support every young man who goes overseas in everything which will make him a soldier battling an accursed thing, and everything that the government can give those young soldiers it is our duty to give them. As I have said, if a boy is not a soldier at heart, if he hasn't "got it under his belt", you cannot make him a soldier. But I admit there are certain things that we must do. We must show the need. In our own way we must act whole-heartedly.
I should like to congratulate the government upon its choice of the new Minister of Labour, Mr. Mitchell. I worked with the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell and with the late Hon. Norman Rogers on the youth training scheme, which was one of the most constructive measures that a Canadian government ever put into effect. I know that from Fort William not hundreds but several thousands of young men have passed through that youth training and are now engaged in war work or overseas -on the land, in the air and on the sea. Mr. Mitchell himself was a worker. I believe that any man who is Minister of Labour should know how a man feels, like after a hard day's work. How can he best legislate for the toiler without some personal knowledge of the man's problems?
I admit I am biased in favour of labour. You can trust the workers through thick and thin; they are the cream of Canada, and, with labour willing to do its best, we as a government should give them the best possible leadership. In the interests of an all-out war
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

effort there should certainly be some equalization of wages and results. I know something of the difficulties which come to those whose task it is to handle men. I realize that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and! his fellow ministers have a terrific job. I would suggest that they throw out some inducement to men to. join the infantry, because to-day service in the air or in the navy holds superior attractions for many of our young men. If the pay of the foot soldier were increased from $1.30 to, say $1.50, it might facilitate recruiting in that arm of the service.
When I think of the war work of Canada I am not just sure whether we have enough men to supply all our various needs. Recently a farmer who had spent $10,000 in equipping a splendid herd told me that he was sending them to the butcher because he could not get help. Perhaps there are not enough men in the country for every phase of war work, but to my mind it is the duty of the government, and they should have a free hand, to ' say whether a man can serve better on the farm or in the machine shop or elsewhere.
Public opinion changes rapidly. The other day, when I saw that a United States army had landed in Ireland, I thought, "Boy, they are in for a fine time over there. Once they get a peek at the cruelty and the devastation which has been wrought in Belfast, that most beautiful city in the British empire, they will get a taste of the thing they need to open their eyes." And knowing something of Ireland and its characteristics, I think they may be taught the rudiments of how to take care of themselves and how to learn to fight and to beat the enemy.
As I have said, public opinion has changed quickly. In a letter from my brother, a member of the cloth, a real soldier and a real man, who is on the coast of Washington, he says that a little while ago public opinion there was anti-Churchill, anti-British, anti-Canada and anti-Roosevelt, but since Pearl Harbour was attacked they are going "all-out" in order to show that they are anti-Hitler and against everything that supports Hitler.
This change in public opinion reminds me of my own attitude towards Russia. I have been guilty of reading everything that I could get hold of about Russia. Some of it was true; some of it was not, but my attitude towards that country and its people, and towards communism as well, has changed. To be called a "red" to-day is no disgrace. Some time ago I visited Tim Buck. I did so because he had

been through a bad wreck. I did so as a minister; for, if I had not, I would have been like the priest and the Levite who looked and went by, fearing lest public' opinion might criticize. I know what I had to meet during the dominion election because of that action. I. was called a communist. But my constituency knew me perfectly well, far better than my critics, and they voted accordingly. I would advise the government to have reexamined all those who are interned as opposing our war effort. I think they should be given an opportunity of getting into our war work, because, as I understand the government, it is not their desire to keep men in prison but rather to give them an opportunity of doing their best.
Canada is doing a great job. Among those engaged in our war effort is the former leader of the opposition. When I think of former members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party and of the Conservative party contributing to our war effort-and this includes the Hon. Dr. Manion, who was chosen to lead his party at an all-Canadian convention-I cannot help believing that the best brains of Canada to-day are engaged in this country's war effort. I suggest, therefore, that we have in reality a better national government than we could otherwise hope to have.
When a man wishes to serve, I think it is wise that he should be given an opportunity to serve in that capacity which he is best fitted to fill. It is not fair to put him to serve where he is not best fitted to serve. Take a trainee who has signed with the air force; he has spent years fitting himself for service in that force; he wants to fly. Well, you hurt that man if you do not give him an opportunity to fly. Another man wishes to join the navy, let us say, and he, too, is a trainee. He should be allowed to serve in that capacity, because he will make a good sailor and he will not make as good a soldier; he will not be a soldier of the same calibre as a sailor, if he were allowed to go to sea. I think, again, of the premiers of our provinces who are willing to go all-out in their own way, whether we think they are right or wrong, in supporting the government, and in this regard I would make a suggestion. I think there are some things the provincial governments can do to help the war effort.
It may surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to know that I made my rounds of the beer parlours of the city of Ottawa. I was not surprised that I did not find a member of this house in any of them, either man or woman, but I did find these places crowded, and I think the premier

The Address-Mr. Green
of this province would do well to try to settle his own affairs and not leave it to the dominion government, because that traffic does coarsen life and unfit soldiers, muddling the brains of men.
Another thing is this. The provinces should do something with regard to old age pensioners. The sum of $20 a month is not very much to-day. Pensioners need a bonus; so do soldiers' wives and soldiers' widows. In my opinion the provincial governments could very well exert themselves and go all-out in their own way.
I notice that in most of the countries at war there is a seven-day week, twenty-four hours a day, in the production of war materials. Well, I have been taught from my youth that the human body needs one day in seven, and if a man does not take one day in seven he will certainly take all his Sundays in a row. I might mention our own car works in Fort William. Girls have gone in there to work with strong healthy bodies and vigorous minds, and I have known of several instances in which they were compelled to retire from their jobs for a month or two on account of ill health. If you do not take your Sabbath day you will pay for it. I would remind hon. members of the old proverb, drawn from the Bible, that if you break the moral law, the moral law will break you. We must "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." A man who toils six days a week needs a day off in which he can get something spiritual to help him in his work. The greatest leaders in every age have recognized the need of one day's rest in seven, and I am sure the Minister of National Defence agrees with me in this regard. After a man has worked for six days, he needs the seventh day to rest. Of course, what he does on the Sabbath makes all the difference in the world. If he rests, in order to build up his mind and his spiritual powers, he will be the better fitted for the work he has to do. If he does not, so much the worse for him.
A famous physician, Sir James Crichton-Browne, said:
We doctors in the treatment of nervous diseases, are now constantly compelled to prescribe periods of rest. Some periods are, I think, only Sundays in arrears.
The eminent conductor, Sir Landon Ronald, discontinued his Sunday concerts in 1928 on account of his health, saying: "I can no longer work seven days a week."
Gladstone attributed his long life to his rigid observance of the Lord's day.
President Coolidge was asked: "Cannot I worship God in the green fields?" He replied: "You can, but you don't."
Of course, I believe that the place of prayer is the place for a man to spend part of his Sunday, because he will hear something there that will put him in communion with the Master Workman, who will give him that stimulus necessary to fit him to play 'his part in life's work.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, when one has been in this house for a time, one can sense the feeling, the atmosphere that prevails in this chamber. I am convinced, and I think you will agree with me, that at this session there is a tenseness, an earnestness and a depth of feeling which I hope and believe goes even deeper than partisan feeling in the minds of members of this house. And I hope this feeling will be allowed free rein by the ministry, because if that is done, decisions may be reached, right here in parliament, which will point the way for the Canadian people during this dark, yet challenging period in our national life. Therefore, believing the house to be in such a frame of mind, may I state quite frankly at the beginning of my remarks that to-night my aim is to point out to my fellow members, and through them to the country, that Canada, our nation, of which we are justly so proud, is in deadly peril. I repeat those words; Canada is in deadly peril; and I aim also to convince members of this house and the people throughout the country that certain things can, should and must be done.
I speak as a representative from Canada on the Pacific. Canada is a two-ocean nation. I am always intrigued by that verse which is carved over the main door of this building, and which is as follows:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
On the east we have those old provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, forming Canada on the Atlantic. But on the west coast, constituting Canada on the Pacific, we have only my own native province of British [DOT] Columbia.
Since the house met last November, war has come to the Pacific. The fires of war are raging round that great ocean. War is the grim business of killing and being killed. Those of us who served in the last war are
The Address-Mr. Green

only too well aware of that fact. But this war is far more grim than the last one by reason of the development of the bombing aeroplane, which has made possible the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of civilians, men, women and children, and because the war in which we are engaged is a war of extermination. Nowhere will it be fought with more savagery than on the Pacific. That was made perfectly clear on December 7 last, when Japan struck at Pearl Harbour while her envoys were still negotiating with the envoys of the nation she attacked. Japan struck and crippled the United States fleet. Crippled the United States fleet! Those are ominous words for Canadians on the Pacific, because year in and year out we have been told that our defence on the Pacific was the United States fleet, and that, in fact, was the truth.
In the seven weeks that have intervened, the British fleet in the Pacific has also been crippled by the loss of those two great battleships, the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. Various strategic islands have been seized. Hong Kong has been taken, wiping out our courageous but ill-fated, ill-equipped and ill-trained Canadian sacrifice force. Hong Kong! Members of this house and all Canadians must burn that name into their memory, for we have a score to settle with the Japanese over Hong Kong. And it must be settled not in North America but on the far side of the Pacific.
These seven weeks have seen Manila taken and the Americans fighting a last-ditch stand for the Philippines; Malaya overrun, with the British fighting a last-ditch stand for Singapore; and Singapore, whether it stands or falls, no longer effective as a great naval base. Bases have been taken in Borneo and in the Celebes for an attack on Java, which is the heart of the Netherlands East Indies. Bases have been taken in the Australian islands, as a prelude, the Australian people believe for an attack on their mainland. May I point out to hon. members that Canadians on the Pacific have great sympathy for Australia. We have a keen understanding of their attitude, because we realize that Canada may eventually be placed in exactly the same position.
In short, these seven weeks of war on the Pacific have placed Japan in control of that ocean. As my authority for that statement, I quote none other than the Britist Prime Minister, Right Hon. Winston Churchill, who, in his speech on January 27, only this week, is quoted as having said:
For a time, therefore, naval superiority in the Pacific and the Malayan archipelago passed into the hands of Japan. How long it will remain in Japanese hands is a matter on which

I do not intend to speculate, but it will be long enough for Japan to inflict many heavy and painful losses on all the united nations who have possessions in the far east.
Further on in his speech, referring to the United States as well as Great Britain, he said:
I expect -and I have made no secret of it that we shall both receive severe ill usage at Japanese hands in 1942.
So Canadians on the Pacific find themselves closer to war than any other Canadians, and more directly involved. I do not wish to make light of the peril in which our fellow Canadians on the Atlantic find themselves. They too are in great peril, but on the Pacific ocean there is no island fortress of Great Britain between Canada and the enemy. There is as our only protection a crippled United States fleet. There is an enemy-not without a fleet, as the German Reich, but an enemy with a first-class navy; an enemy with a first-class and very strong merchant marine, an excellent air force, and an army that has had experience in warfare for the last ten years. And there is an ocean-the Pacific ocean, such a vast ocean that there is plenty of room for fleets to operate without their being discovered.
Canadians on the Pacific coast have already experienced that sudden warning which can be appreciated only by those who have heard it in their homes. They have heard coming suddenly over their radios-"An enemy attack on the Canadian coast is imminent"-and then the radio station shuts off. The attack, presumably, was expected from aircraft carriers off the coast. Sooner or later that attack will come. It did not come at the time we received the warning, but I am convinced that sooner or later it will come, and our coastal cities and hamlets will be bombed. The people of British Columbia are not whining about that. They are not of the type who whine, any more than are any other Canadians. We are not a whining nation.
They realize, too, that the United States has bases in Alaska. To the north and northwest of us there are great United States bases which afford considerable protection to us, but at the same time those bases are a great menace to Japan. The base on the Aleutian islands is, I believe, the nearest hostile base to the shores of Japan. Therefore those Alaskan bases may be-"may be" I repeat- the next in line for attack by Japan. It may be that included in the objectives of such an attack would be our own city of Prince Rupert, the Queen Charlotte islands, and even Port Alberni. These may be sought by the Japanese as nuisance bases, or even as invasion bases.

The Address-Mr. Green
Should they be taken by the Japanese, it would be possible from them for the enemy to bomb our coastal cities at short range; they would be in a position to bomb our shipyards, our war industries. The greatest shipbuilding industry in Canada is on the Pacific coast. Our heaviest merchant-shipbuilding programme is being carried out on that coast. It would be possible to bomb United States coastal cities where, again, are naval bases and great aeroplane plants. I believe 90 per cent of United States aeroplane factories are located on the Pacific coast. It would be possible to make the whole of British Columbia a battle-ground, and even to bomb the prairie cities such as Edmonton and Calgary.
This is not just an idle fancy of my own. I should like to read to hon. members dispatches from Japan published on January 9 of this year, only about two or three weeks ago. I quote this report of an article in the Japan Times and Advertiser, controlled by the Japanese foreign office:
The Japan Times and Advertiser, controlled by the foreign office, declared to-day it was within the realm of probability "that the armed forces of this country will land on the American continent" . . . "The contention that the United States cannot be invaded" the article declared "is as much a myth as that the Maginot line could not be taken or that Singapore and Pearl Harbour are impregnable. .	.	. The fall of both the Philippines and
Singapore was forecast soon. After that, the newspaper went on, "It will be for us to say when, where and how we will strike."
Let us not forget that the shortest route from Japan to San Francisco is by the Aleutian islands and the coast of British Columbia- much shorter than by way of the Hawaiian islands. Let us remember that Vancouver is closer to Yokohama than is Sydney, Australia.
Canadians on the Pacific coast know, also, that the Canadian armed forces on that coast are hopelessly inadequate to deal with an attempted invasion. They know that large numbers of our troops on that coast are home-defence troops, called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. This means that fighting troops from Prince Rupert could not go, as a unit, to the neighbouring panhandle of Alaska, should Alaska be attacked. Fighting troops from units defending Victoria at this time could not go to neighbouring San Juan island, or across the strait of Juan de Fuca to Port Angeles. It means that the fighting troops guarding the city of Vancouver could not go across the line to Bellingham, should Bellingham be attacked, because many of them are home-defence troops. Our units could not go across to aid United States troops -joint defence council or no joint defence
council. On the other hand, if you please, young Americans could and doubtless would be sent to help us, should we be attacked.
That is an intolerable position. It is intolerable for a brave and proud people. It is intolerable for a nation which in the last war sent out fighting men who proved themselves on the battle-field the peers of any men on this globe, a nation which in this war has sent abroad young men of the same breed.
Canadians on the Pacific coast know, too, that what forces we have are not all adequately equipped. For example, we find this press dispatch on the front page of the Vancouver Province of January 3, nearly a month after Japan had declared war:
Guns coming here within few weeks.
The dispatch goes on to say:
A number of anti-aircraft guns have been allotted to the Vancouver defence area, and on their arrival here within the next few weeks will be mounted at strategic points through the district, an army spokesman announced to-day.
And as for rifles for the reserve army- some of them have no rifles at all. Those who have, I believe, are, or were within the last few days, using old United States rifles with red bands round the top, signifying that they were not fit to be fired.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend must not
say that. If my hon. friend knows anything about the matter at all, he knows they are perfectly fit for service in every way. I suggest to my hon. friend that he get the facts. If he would come to my office and get the facts, instead of making statements of that kind in the house, he would be doing better service for the defence of Canada, and not bringing comfort to the enemy.


Howard Charles Green: I am making my speech, and I ask that I should not be interrupted.


James Layton Ralston: I appeal to my hon. friend. I do say to him that if he would get the facts before making statements of that kind, it would help considerably in the defence of Canada, and certainly would not afford the comfort to the enemy that a speech of this kind is bound to do.


Howard Charles Green: That is old talk, about helping the enemy. The enemy have known for a long time. And as for the rifles-it might be possible to fire them a few times, but it is a bad thing when the men who defend the Pacific coast have to do so with old United States rifles that were made twenty-five years ago; when they have not modern rifles.
The Address-Mr. Green


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that my hon. friend does not even know the first rudiments in reference to the supply of rifles. I suggest that he come to my office and find out before he makes a statement of that kind.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister is going a little too far.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend ia
going a little too far.


Howard Charles Green: I do not propose to try to follow the minister along that line. It is the lives of our families, our relatives and our people that are at stake in this matter. I did not come here to make cheap political talk; I am worried about the people on the Pacific coast. The men who are defending us are entitled to the best equipment that can be obtained in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: Hear, hear. And if my hon. friend will find out about the availability of equipment, it will be a different story. He should also find out with regard to the efficiency of these rifles about which he is speaking.


Howard Charles Green: There are men in the active army on the coast who have no rifles at all. These are not men in the battalions, but in other branches of the active army. Every soldier on that coast should have a rifle and should be trained to use it. He should be trained to fight regardless of what branch of the service he happens to belong to. And again, Japanese fishermen on the Pacific coast have been made to turn over their boats. I think this was a wise move on the part of the government, but Canadians out there see these Japanese fishermen who naturally may be embittered, going back to their villages up and down the coast. There are eighteen hundred of these fishermen, and if they saw fit they could guide enemy naval forces to every bay, every landing place and perhaps every gun on the Canadian coast. Meanwhile the government ponders what is to be done next. And they see that this government has done everything possible to foist the responsibility for air raid precautions upon the provinces and the municipalities, although it is clearly a problem of defence and should be handled by the dominion.
To sum up, the Canadians on the Pacific coast are restless; they are worried, they are annoyed. Now they are given a plebiscite in which the following question is asked:
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?
What will go through their minds when they are voting on that question if there happen
[Mr. Green.J
to be air raids threatened at the time? The Prime Minister talks of unity, but this plebiscite will not create unity among the people on the Pacific coast. So much for the peril in which Canada finds herself.
I shall now go on to suggest certain things which can, which should and which must be done. First of all, let us cast out from our minds at once the thought: It cannot happen here. That has been the curse of democratic countries in this war. Let us replace it with the thought: It can happen here; right here in Ottawa, in Halifax, in Toronto, in Vancouver, or in any other part of Canada. No thought will make us more realistic, no thought will help us more to avoid reverses and to gain victories.
For example, I am convinced that the ministry have not given serious consideration to the possibility of a Japanese invasion of Canada. If they had, they would not risk the delay and confusion that will be caused by this plebiscite. I am convinced further that the staff on the Pacific coast and the staff here in Ottawa have not considered what they would do in the event of invasion. Our new chief of staff is reported in the Vancouver press of December 18, less than two weeks after Japan had declared war, as follows:
"Canada's Pacific coast defences are, I believe, capable of coping with any probable attacks that we may have to face", Lieutenant-General Kenneth Stuart, chief of the Canadian general staff, said this morning on his arrival here following a three-day inspection of defence areas on Vancouver island.
"I have no doubt," General Stuart added, "that I will be accused of complacency in this regard, and yet that is far from correct. We are fully aware of the dangers that have developed with Japan's entry into the war and we are adjusting our forces to meet these dangers."
The chief of staff stressed the possibility of hit-and-run attacks along the British Columbia coast. " I do not say we can prevent these attacks but I do think we are in a position to deal with them."
Further on, the report states:
The possibility of a Japanese invasion here, he believed, is extremely remote.
That reminds me of the words of Air Marshal Sir Robert Brooke-Popham, who said in Singapore on December 8, the day after Japan struck:
We are confident. Our defences are strong and our weapons are efficient. We bad plenty of warning and our preparations are made and tested.
Words which unfortunately held more of hope than of fact.

The Address-Mr. Green
If this invasion attack should come, probably our generals would make another of these strategic retreats with the remnants of our forces to the mountains, leaving the people on the coast to their fate, and in the result thousands of Canadians would have to die to get back what need never have been lost. Let us make up our minds now; let us tell our commanders and our people that not one inch of Canadian soil is to be yielded without a fight.
My second suggestion as to what should be done is that we should give our commanders armies that can fight anywhere. At the present time we arc giving commanders in Canada units made up of two kinds of soldiers, those who can be taken beyond Canada and those who cannot. That makes it impossible to build up here an efficient fighting force. Let us go further and make certain that we can keep these armies reinforced with fully trained troops, not troops who have had less than sixteen weeks training. I believe at the present time, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) can correct me if I am wrong, that even the fourth and sixth divisions arc not up to full strength.


James Layton Ralston: I may tell my hon. friend that the fourth division, which is an armoured division, is up to full strength for an armoured division. I cannot remember just the number it was below for an infantry division, but I think there were one or two units that were not mobilized. With regard to the sixth division, I think the strength is about 10,000; that is nearly the strength of three brigade groups.


Howard Charles Green: Then the fourth is not up to strength.


James Layton Ralston: It is up to strength for an armoured division. I stated that, as an infantry division, I think there were one or two units that were not mobilized.


Howard Charles Green: The announcement that this was to be turned into an armoured division was made only a couple of days ago.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend get my point? There were a couple of units which had not been mobilized. That is the correct situation. It was not up to strength on that account.


Howard Charles Green: My suggestion is that we make certain that there are ample reinforcements, and that means conscription. Why should we dodge this issue of conscription as a means of organizing our man-power? I was greatly impressed by the report of a Gallup poll taken in Great Britain where the common
people of Great Britain were asked what advice they would give to the common people of the United States about the war. One of these suggestions was that man and woman power should be organized efficiently and at once, that they should not take half-way measures. Why should we in Canada hesitate? In Great Britain we had Prime Minister Churchill saying these words this week:
It looks as if we were in for a very bad time. But, provided we all stand together and provided we throw in the last spasm of our strength, it also looks more than it ever did before as if we were going to win.
Canada should throw in more of her strength and not leave it all to Great Britain. This government, I believe, feels much the same; otherwise it would not be calling for a plebiscite. Let us have conscription, and let us have it without delay, but let us make it complete conscription of all our resources right down the line, including industrial and financial resources, as advocated, for example, by the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League.
My third suggestion is that things must be done now, without delay. We should pay more attention to timing. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he spoke on Monday, gave us a little curtain-lecture on the importance of timing. Well, the principal thing about timing in this war is not to be too late. Let us realize that in this war every day is precious. Japan struck nearly two months ago, and this government rushed in to be the first to declare war. Apparently it is going to be the last to rush in to take up the fight. The ministry should have moved at once to put this nation on an all-out war basis. But they did not. Now, although they see the need, they are taking time out to hold a plebiscite, which means, at the minimum, a delay of three months. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is making a mockery of talk of a total war effort. We must wage war now-not a matter of months hence.
Finally, I have suggestions with respect to the Pacific front.	The Pacific coast is a
front, and should be treated as such. It is a war front, and on that Pacific front we should have one supreme commander. I believe that we now have three commanders-and the ministers will correct me if I am wrong. I believe (hat the army commander, the navy commander and the air force commander work together by cooperation rather than any one of them being in command over the other two. That was the situation at Pearl Harbour, except that instead of three commanders there were only two. But Canada,
The Address-Mr. Green

itlmost two months after Pearl Harbour, still has a triple command on that Pacific front. Also let us make it a fighting command where we shall put, not one of our older generals, but one of our most aggressive commanders with experience overseas in this war, and with a fighting staff built up on the same basis as those in Great Britain. We may see fighting on the Pacific coast before our troops in Great Britain get into action.
Then let us build up a striking force, not a force that will merely sit there to defend, but build up on the Pacific coast a striking force which could be an expeditionary force. For example, why should Canada not have air troops; trained and in position on that coast? They would be of the greatest advantage in recapturing any point of the coast that might be attacked and captured. No troops would be of more use, but apparently we have none in Canada at the present time. I suggest that the government obviously is treating the Pacific coast as. a secondary theatre of war. The Prime Minister said the other day that perhaps-perhaps-there was nothing certain about it-we would raise another new division to help defend Canada after the fourth division had gone to Britain. Again, yesterday, when I asked him whether Canada was to be represented on the new Pacific defence council, he said he did not know anything about it at all, that it had only to do with the far, far away southern Pacific, and apparently he was not very much interested.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has said one thing which I must correct. He said that Canada was treating the Pacific coast as a secondary theatre of war. I say that Canada in our defence plans is treating the Pacific coast with the greatest seriousness, with the seriousness which it deserves. Within *a very few days after war was declared with Japan, the chief of the general staff went out to the Pacific coast himself to inspect the defence positions all up and down that coast. My hon. friend has read from his statement, but the fact that he does not agree with the chief of the general staff as to the technical and strategic position does not mean that we are treating the Pacific coast in any secondary way at all. My hon. friend knows, if he knows anything, that the dispositions made out there indicate that we regard the Pacific coast defences as of unquestionable importance, and I would add that the Pacific coast has defence, in certain items of equipment, that no other part of Canada has.


Howard Charles Green: That is not very much for the government supporters to applaud because there it should be. The Pacific coast is the portion of Canada most likely to be attacked.

Then I suggest that the government should give leadership in organizing the people in the matter, for example, of air raid precautions, in organizing home guards and arranging for insurance against bomb damage. There has been talk of that, for months, ever since Japan struck, but no plan, so far as I am aware, has been announced. No minister of the government, including our minister from British Columbia, has been on the coast since war was declared on December 7. There should be a minister of this government resident on the Pacific coast during this present crisis.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will support that.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that necessarily we want our own minister there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will never be left to your judgment, thank heaven.


Howard Charles Green: There is another grave danger on the Pacific coast. Canadians on the Pacific are entitled to and insist on getting complete protection from treachery, protection from being stabbed in the back. The rest of Canada, under successive dominion governments, failed to listen to our representatives from British Columbia when they asked for an end to Japanese immigration. But now what British Columbia members for the last thirty-five years have been telling other members of the house would happen has come to pass, and the rest of Canada must do its part. It must now come to our help. I appeal to private members on the government side of the house to see that the ministry do come to our help in this matter. We have at least 24,000 of Japanese origin in our province, all in the coastal area

fishermen, men working in our woods in the lumbering industry, men farming on both sides of the great Eraser river valley, which means that they are astride both of our transcontinental lines. There has been treachery elsewhere from Japanese in this war, and we have no reason to hope that there will be none in British Columbia. If we were in a similar position, if we were Canadians in Japan, we might feel much the same; we would be only too willing to assist British troops should they attempt to land on the Japanese coast. The only complete protection we can have from this danger is to remove the Japanese population from the province. I believe that the commanders of the fighting forces on the coast and the special committee on the Japanese problem set up by this government have advised that at least all Japanese

The Address-Mr. Cruickshanh
males be removed from the coastal areas. The ministers will correct me if I am wrong. This government announced on January 14 that it would define certain areas as protected areas and move out from those areas Japanese nationals-not saying whether they would move out the Japanese born in our province or those who have become naturalized, and no man can get a fishing licence without taking out naturalization papers. But it has not yet been done, and British Columbia is waiting, waiting rather impatiently, to know whether this was just a stall, to know just what this government intends to do and when it intends to do it.


James Layton Ralston: I may say to my hon.
friend that the protected area has been defined. It is a matter for the concurrence of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice. I am satisfied that the submission to council has already been signed and that the protected area will be declared at once.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister,
what it is?


James Layton Ralston: It is defined by a line
hundreds of miles long. It is a matter for reference to a map.


Howard Charles Green: The whole policy on the
Japanese question should be announced without further delay. We ask that we be given complete protection.
In conclusion, the situation as I have stated it is as I see it and, I believe, as it is seen by the great majority of the Canadians on the Pacific. I am in deadly earnest because I believe that this nation is in dire peril, and also because I believe that at this time, as never before, the members of this parliament hold in their hands the future of the Canadian people. In this dark and challenging time Canadians look to us here in the Canadian parliament. Let us rise to the occasion and give them the bold and far-seeing leadership to which they are so justly entitled. .


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Speaker, the members of this house, are extremely fortunate to-night to have the privilege of hearing, not just one, but two members from British Columbia. I realize that some hon. members from the rest of Canada have long awaited this privilege; I have been looking forward to it myself. I did not know that I was to have the good fortune to follow the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green)-a good personal friend of mine, though we may disagree politically.
I want, for a few minutes, to discuss the war effort, particularly in so far as it concerns the conscription issue; the Japanese situation, of which I have heard a little during the last few minutes; and agriculture.
In days gone by, all of us used to hear of the famous "Four Hundred". Coming from a farm, I never had the privilege of living among them, but I have read a little about them in the Toronto Globe and Mail or some such paper. More recent interest is in the famous "Two Hundred". Most of the "Four Hundred," I have understood, wear diamonds; they are invited to the houses of the Vanderbilts and similar mansions. Now, having heard of the famous "Four Hundred", I wanted also to discover what I could of the "Two Hundred". One of the good things that the Dominion of Canada does is to provide a library in which one can get information concerning all the leading-lights of Canada and the world at large. I repaired to the library to get some information. I recommend to hon. members, or some of them, that they spend a little of their time enlarging their information, as I do. In the library there is a shelf of biographies of the great men of Canada, and of history, and I want to commend the librarian, whoever he may be, whether appointed by the last government or the present one, for his discerning talent in selecting books. The first book I found on the shelf was a life of Winston Churchill by Robert Sencourt. Nobody can find fault with that selection; Mr. Churchill is one of the greatest men that ever lived, one of the outstanding figures of this or any other generation. Then I found "Roosevelt, A Study in Fortune and Power". Can anybody name a man who has contributed more to the allied cause than Roosevelt? And no man has done more for the British empire in cementing the friendship between Roosevelt and Churchill than has Mackenzie King.
Naturally, being a modest and unassuming young man from the far west, I hesitate to tell you of the next book I found in the library on the shelf of lives of famous men. I hope that my hon. friend the member for Vancouver South is listening carefully. I will mention, first, the name of the author, Blanchard Jerrold. It is a little red book, well bound; its title, standing as the book does on that shelf of lives of famous men, is "George Cruikshank". Any hon. member may get this book, and I shall be happy to autograph a copy.
I shall not take up much time, on such a serious occasion as the present in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne,

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
although I claim that I may have a greater knowledge of such speeches than many hon. members who are sitting in this present session. If the Speaker would permit me- I do not know whether I would be in order or not-I could divert now and give half of my speech in the Japanese language; let me say that if conditions in the west are allowed to continue as they have been going, everybody in British Columbia will, in a few years, be speaking Japanese.
I am very proud to say that my roommate is now serving overseas, and I have the privilege of looking after his riding as well as my own. I say I consider it a privilege, because he is where a good many men ought to be who are talking about conscription. Just this evening, while the hon. member for Vancouver South was speaking, I received a cable, which I will read to the house because it concerns two hon. members from British Columbia who are supporters of the present government, and I have full authority to speak on their behalf in this connection.
Mr. George Cruickshank, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Met Alan Chambers in town and heard Churchill in parliament yesterday. Advise you join the army and come over.
James Sinclair, M.P.
I want to say to this committee of Two Hundred, "Join the army and go over; don't try to send others over."
As I said, I have heard something in connection with speeches made in the house by those who move and second addresses in reply to speeches from the throne. My roommate made his speech so often in my hearing that, before he was through, I could have repeated it in English, French, Japanese and Esperanto and done it better than he did, so far as being word perfect is concerned. One word which I heard frequently in that speech and which possibly some of my friends in the party to which I belong do not like particularly, was used by him with regard to the war effort of Canada-the word "complacency". He chose that word, and it echoed and re-echoed from one end of Canada to the other.
Let me assure the house in all seriousness that I support a great deal of what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said with reference to the Japanese situation in British Columbia. Let me make this statement, in fairness to myself and to those whom I represent-and I may say that I represent with the hon. member for New Westminster, 75 per cent of the Japanese population in British Columbia. We are not satisfied, and under our democratic system we have a right

to say so in the houses of parliament. We are not satisfied with the action that has so far been taken in my riding, at least, with regard to the Japanese situation.
I would rather enjoy it if any member of this house or anyone else were to question my patriotism or loyalty; but much as I love my country, I love my family more. I live in the Fraser valley where we are surrounded by Japanese. I have read all about Pearl Harbour, and I can tell the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) what our views are out in that part of the country. I want to tell him emphatically what we think, and I say this with all respect to him; for with only one exception, so far as this House of Commons is concerned, that exception being the Prime Minister of this dominion (Mr. Mackenzie King), I revere the Minister of National Defence more than any one else. I say to him, however-and I am speaking my own opinion as a member from British Columbia, and one who should know something about the Japanese situation-that he has been ill-advised with respect to the situation in our province.
We cannot afford to wait; we cannot afford to take chances after Pearl Harbour. I wish to make my position clear, and it is my duty to do so. I was never consulted by the so-called committee-not the Department of National Defence, but the so-called committee, who know nothing about the Japanese situation in that province; nor was any other member from that province consulted. I regret the mistakes that have been made in that connection, and I have expressed my views on every platform on which ff have spoken. I am not, however, worrying about mistakes made in the past so long as they are not repeated in the future. I want to warn the house and the Minister of National Defence-and I do so in all sincerity, irrespective of party-that there are no people living at present in the city of Ottawa who have any greater or more intimate or more thorough knowledge of the Japanese situation than is possessed by the members elected to parliament from that part of the country in which is to be found the "Japanese peril."
Let me pass on now to the subject of agriculture. I like to talk about that subject, because the only people who, I understand, have made any money in agriculture in the last few years are some of the farmers in Ontario. One of my hon. friends-I could call him by name, but I am not permitted to do so, and I have forgotten his riding-has a couple of race horses. I am ignorant about race horses; the only one I ever bet on came in last. I do

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
not know anything about that sort of farming, but I do know something about agriculture, British Columbia agriculture at least. It is true that we are not getting a better price for our agricultural products than we did get; it would be foolish to deny this. But I should like to refer hon. members to the Vancouver Daily Province, a representative British Columbia paper. On the day I left British Columbia, that journal carried fourteen advertisements under the caption "milker wanted", in each of which the pay was stated to be $55 to $05 a month and board.
I realize that many members of the house cannot know a great deal about farming. That is natural. As I say, however, there were fourteen advertisements for "milker wanted", paying from $55 to $65 a month. To digress for a moment, I may say that for the first time since I have been in Ottawa I approve of one of these officials that have been appointed. I refer to Mr. Gordon, a man who knows his business and is administering the price-fixing plans. He has the courage of his convictions, and it is only men of that type who should have such responsibilities.
When we were getting a certain price for milk we were paying from $20 to $25 a month for labour, and now we are paying $55 to $65 and board and cannot get labour. I want to keep my record clear on this question. I do not blame labour; it is not getting what it is entitled to. But labour will agree with me, I believe, when I say that the prices which were set, so far as agriculture is concerned, were not set on the same basis as in the case of labour. So far as labour is concerned, they were set in accordance with high prices; this was not so with regard to agriculture.
Let me point out to my hon. friends to the extreme left, for whom I have great admiration, that the greatest safeguard labour has in Canada, or in any other country for that matter-I hope the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is present-is organized agriculture. That is the greatest safeguard that labour can fall back upon. You could not keep a union going to-morrow if you did not have agriculture to fall back upon, and it is in the interests of labour as much as it is in mine to see that agriculture gets a fair break. As my respected leader said, agriculture is as much an integral part of the war effort as tanks, guns, or anything else. Everyone, I believe, agrees with that; but you cannot carry on a true war effort until such time as you put agriculture on a sound basis. I repeat, you cannot establish a true war effort until you put agriculture on a parity with labour and industry, and no one can tell me that this has yet been done.
Let me quote a few head-lines from the Ottawa Citizen:
Controlled price for butter urged by dairy farmers.
Here is another:
Proper proportion of guns and butter held victory aid.
As you will see, I am leading up to conscription.
Here is one point to which I think the government should pay particular attention. I strongly disapprove of the policy of bonuses. I am not from Saskatchewan or Alberta or Manitoba or any of the desolate countries, and I strongly disapprove of the policy of bonuses. I want to quote a head-line that appeared in a prominent paper last night, and to repeat something I said in the first speech I made in this house. The greatest asset Canada wifi have to offer when we come to discuss peace terms is our vast store of food. I do not think we should curtail the production of wheat; I think we should encourage it. I would far rather see more wheat grown in Canada than more gold produced in Kirkland Lake, British Columbia or anywhere else. This is the head-line that appeared in last evening's Citizen:
Bread Selling in Athens for $15 per Loaf.
Famine conditions in Greece are so acute that two thousand persons died in Athens alone in a single day, and bread sells for $15 a loaf, the Journal de Geneve reported to-day.
I need not read the rest of the dispatch; but is it not reasonable to expect that food will have more to do with the peace terms, after this war is over, than guns, tanks or anything else? I am firmly of that opinion, and I believe it is nonsense to curtail the production of foodstuffs. I think the government should pay the prairie farmer an adequate return on a reasonable acreage for as much wheat as he can produce, and let him produce it.
Tor a moment I want to turn to conscription. You may call it a plebiscite or anything you like, but that is what it amounts to. I honestly consider myself a friend of every man and woman in this house; at least I should like to think I am. I do not claim that I am more patriotic than any other hon. member. I do not claim that the party to which I belong is any more patriotic than any other party. I think we are all sincere in what we do, and so I hope what I have to say in this regard will be taken in good part, because I do not wish to give offence to anyone. In this, however, I speak as a veteran of the last war, as a farmer and as a member of parliament. For good and sufficient reasons
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

many men were unable to serve in the last war; they were physically unfit, or something else prevented them from serving. But I must say-and in doing so I speak as a member of the Canadian Legion, and as a veteran accept full responsibility for what I am saying-that I think it ill-timed and ill-advised for any man to advocate, preach or talk conscription of the other fellow if he himself is under the age of sixty, if he did not serve in the last war, and has no son serving in this war. I am expressing my opinion, whether or not some people like it. I think it ill-advised for any man who is physically fit, of military age and not in uniform, to advocate that his neighbour's son be taken for this war. That is my opinion, and I stand by it. A great many of the men who have been talking about conscription know nothing about it. In the last war I served all the way from a private to a company commander; and I will take one volunteer in preference to any ten conscripts in any war. During my election campaign I said I believed, and I still firmly believe, that from the start we should have had compulsory selective service. It is the fairest way. But I want to repeat what I also said during the campaign, that it must be accompanied by the compulsory service of wealth and industry. That is what I said on every platform; that is what I still believe, and I speak as a returned soldier who is not afraid to go back to his riding at any time and face his electors. I believe in compulsory selective service from start to finish, but I believe that it must be accompanied by the conscription of wealth and industry.
I do not believe in red herrings, Mr. Speaker. I do not know7 where I heard it, but somewhere I heard that in some districts they can their lobsters and sell them, while in other districts they elect them. I am prepared to support any party that will come out with a legitimate proposition to help in winning this war; but when it is brought out as a red herring, as was the case with this famous committee of Two Hundred from Toronto, representing financial and vested interests, that is another matter. I will not say I am ashamed, but I am surprised that my good friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, whom I greatly admire, should even associate themselves with an amendment that will further such a dastardly attack on the democratic rights of the people of Canada.


Mr. COLDWELL:: But we have not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you; I
am glad to hear that. I for one stand by my pledge, and will continue to stand by it. That pledge was given also by my leader and even by Doctor Manion, who said that before conscription for overseas service would be introduced, the people would be consulted. I am asking my friends in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to remember that. This government is doing the only honourable thing in asking to be relieved of the pledges it gave in good faith. You may question whether or not the pledges should have been given, but they were given. So I am asking my friends in the extreme left comer-not too extreme; half-way down- to get out and work for this plebiscite, as I intend to do, and to vote for it, as I intend to do. As a member supporting the government, I firmly believe that if we break our pledges, we lose all we are fighting for. Then, after we have been released of our pledge let my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation ask me to vote with them for the conscription of wealth, industry and man-power.
It has been said of the Liberal party that we would not take other people into the government. I do not know how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps you could check up and let me have a few more minutes anyway.
I want to point out that we as a Liberal party have been criticized because we did not form a national government. That is all this committee-of-two-hundred smoke-screen is, with respect to national government. That is all Tory stuff. They think it should be a national government of a few mining interests, a few financial interests; that is all this smokescreen of conscription is about. They have not the courage to come out, as did the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and declare their stand. They are hiding behind the smoke-screen of conscription, and yet they ask us to bring in members of all parties, or members from outside the government, and persons outside the House of Commons.
Yesterday I listened to the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), and I heard his objections with respect to the new Minister of Labour and the new Minister of Justice who are to be brought from outside the House of Commons. But it will be remembered that during the last two sessions hon. members in my hon. friend's party were demanding that we bring in the best brains of the country from without the house, or from anywhere. We all know that; they demanded it.

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
Vie now bring them in-and what do they do? They say, "Oh, you did not take them from your own little house around you." I may get around in time; maybe I should be over there on the government benches. But they blamed us when we did not take them from within, and when we have not taken them from without. What do they want us to do?
I want to say here and now that I have the greatest respect for the Conservative party, but I have not the slightest respect for the Tory party. Yes, I have great respect for the Conservative party. To be frank, I would not be here to-day if I had not had some friends in the Conservative and Cooperative Commonwealth Federation groups. I am willing to admit that. But I must point out that the Conservative party, when they asked us to form a national government did not have a man to offer. I would naturally assume that when they asked that, they wanted us to take a Conservative into the cabinet, but they frankly admit they had not one to give us. Yes, they admitted that they had not one to offer us, and they cannot deny it. I defy one of them to rise in his place and deny it. They had not one to offer us, I repeat, for the simple reason that they could not even get a leader among themselves. They had to go outside the party to get one. So, how could they give us one? '
I want to tell hon. members-and I defy contradiction-that not a solitary Conservative western member voted voluntarily for Arthur Meighen to lead the party. He was not elected. I have had disputes with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), but I respect him. He is the leader of a great party, and he is a sincere man who was elected by the popular vote in his riding. He was chosen by the vote of his members to lead his party. But the new leader was not elected at all; he was appointed by George McCullagh, and a few others. We cannot get a member to come into this cabinet; and if we cannot get a prominent Conservative among the forty or so elected representatives in the House of Commons- and how so many people made that mistake in Canada, I cannot say-I want to ask: Where will we get a Conservative to come into this so-called national government, governed and directed by the Financial Post of Toronto and a man named McCullagh? Where would we get them? We cannot get a prominent Conservative across the Dominion of Canada to come in, because if he has not been elected, he is a dollar-a-year-man, or a prominent official in the Department of National Defence.
Where are we going to get him, I would like to know-and I hope the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is in his seat.
I still have confidence in the youth of Canada. I believe I have made myself clear on the matter of conscription; even the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation will agree that I have made myself clear. It is my opinion that we can get sufficient volunteers at the present time. If the time ever comes-and it may-when we have to enforce conscription, then, party or no party, it must be done. I am a Canadian and a Britisher first; party comes last, so far as I am concerned.
I do not believe it is necessary yet to enforce conscription, but I must point out that if voluntary enlistments have not been what they should have been, nothing is more to blame than the Department of National Defence. At the time of the last war we had what was known as the intelligence branch. In this war, in so far as my private opinion is concerned, we have what is sometimes called the recruiting branch. I call it the stupidity branch," and that is the reason we have not more volunteers.
I should like to describe one case in the principal city of my constituency. This has reference to a young chap who earned a gold medal in his senior matriculation year at high school. He had the leading record in British Columbia, so far as graduation is concerned. This boy went to a Royal Canadian Air Force recruiting ofiice. I must add, in passing and I say this in all sincerity-that he was a Tory, I am sorry to say. I should have preferred him to be a Social Crediter, or something else. However, he was a Tory. Remember, I am not drawing on my imagination, because I could give the boy's name. He went to the recruiting officer appointed by the Department of National Defence-I am sure he must have been an officer appointed to keep them out. Do you know what he said? Well, he said, first of all, "Where are you from"? and the boy replied that he was from the farm. Well, God help the day when any son from a farm in Canada is not as worthy of consideration and respect as any other man -even if he may come from the city of Toronto. This recruiting officer said to the young man, "Oh, you do not want to join the Royal Canadian Air Force; you would not be at home in the officers' mess; look at your hands." That boy had earned his way through high school, even to the point of winning the gold medal, and yet he was told that he would not feel at home, because his

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

hands were rough. But that boy bombed Germany on several occasions, and after a raid over Berlin he is now missing.
There is great stupidity in the recruiting offices, and that is the reason why we have not more volunteers. Then, there is another constituency I happen to represent, during the absence of my roommate. I refer to the constituency of Vancouver North. The second largest shipyard in Canada is in that constituency, and it is operated by a man having millions of dollars. That man has three sons, two of whom are twins nineteen years of age. The other is twenty-one years old. This boy is missing somewhere over Germany. The other two boys are serving to-day in England in the Royal Air Force. Some stupid, ignorant representative of this select outfit-God knows who selected it-called up the mother of this lad who is missing. The father of this boy is quite a wealthy man and has been doing a marvellous job in his war work. This stupid, ignorant appointee of some official who has undermined the government and undermined the war effort called up this lady and said, "I am sorry to tell you, but you have not a God's chance of ever seeing your son again." Why did he want to tell her that? These are the stupid asses who are to be found in that building not far from here. If you are short of recruits, I could get enough to fill ten divisions from the Jackson building, the national defence building or the dollar-a-day men.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) will excuse me if I do not try to follow the many arguments he has presented to-night. There is, however, one thing I must say. The speech you are going to hear now will not be half as good as the one you have just heard. Following two hon. members from British Columbia, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and the hon. member for Fraser Valley, I cannot help realizing, as I am sure all other hon. members do, the grave situation that exists on the western coast. I would, however, point out to these hon. members that we in eastern Canada have realized for the last two years that the situation was very serious. Perhaps it is the newness of the situation on the western coast that has impressed the hon. members so emphatically during the last fewr weeks or months.	[DOT]
I agree that the western coast is in danger and that eveiy effort should be made to meet that danger. I am aware also that we have been in danger on the eastern coast for over two years and are still in grave danger. This

simply emphasizes the fact that Canada is a great and large country, and I am sure that Canadians, whether they come from the east, from the middle or from the west, are interested in one thing only-the defence of Canada as a whole.
Any remarks which I make this evening will of necessity be. quite brief. I have heard only a little of this debate because I have been here but a few hours since the session opened, having had other duties to perform during my short stay in Ottawa. I understand the mover, (Mr. Fournier, Hull) and the seconder, (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City), of the address made eloquent speeches. It is just what I would expect from both of those hon. gentlemen because I have been with them in the house for the past six years, and I know they are able debaters. As to the substance of their remarks, there is naturally a great difference of opinion. From what I have heard I do not think I can agree with the substance of the remarks of either one of them.
I was surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Brantford City. Brantford is one of the most patriotic cities in the dominion, and I do not believe his remarks represent the opinion of the people in that splendid city.
We have heard a great deal about the promises that were made in the election of 1940, and this will be the chief topic of my remarks this evening. I believe both the senior parties made a great mistake by stating as planks in their platforms that they were not in favour of conscription. If we had been honest with the people of Canada, as we should have been when a war was on, we would have told them that if conscription were necessary, we would be in favour of it. We find ourselves in our present position because we neglected to do that. In the light of present events it would have been both an honourable and a proper attitude for these two parties to take. Being wrong, then I contend that we only perpetuate the wrong by calling for a plebiscite. Two wrongs have never made a right, and I do not think any argument that can be presented now will make them right.
I saw a report of some remarks made the other day in Montreal by the premier of Quebec. He was addressing a mass meeting, and there was a clamorous cry against conscription. Young men who should be in khaki were clamouring against conscription to defend the_ country in which they live. The argument used by the premier of Quebec was that we should consider the position in which Australia finds herself to-day because she sent so many of her men out of the

The Address-Mr. Brooks
country. A good many of those men were volunteers. The fact that a man volunteers for active service does not mean that he will be sent out of the country; it is up to the Department of National Defence to say whether he shall be sent out of the country. If he is needed in Canada, hfe remains here; if he is needed overseas, he is sent overseas. To say that because we have conscription all our men will be sent out of the country and will not be here to defend the country if needed, is not a logical argument. It is one which should not have been used before an intelligent audience by the premier of Quebec.
I agree with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White), who spoke yesterday and said that there was an implied promise on the part of the government. Som'etimes an implied promise is stronger than a spoken one, and in this case there is no doubt which is the stronger. It is a more binding promise than anything that could be said in the heat of an election. Then there was a definite promise by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-all hon. members heard it-to the effect that we must wage a total war. What does total war mean? I would say it means that we must wage war to the limit of our resources, both material and man-power. I believe that is the definition which the Prime Minister himself would give.
The Prime Minister says that he wishes to keep a promise which he made in the heat of the election to the people of the Dominion of Canada. He went on to say that the condition in which the world finds itself today is due to broken promises. That is just one of the reasons, and, I would say, the least. The present-day condition of the world is not due entirely to broken promises. It is due to the fact that the democratic countries of the world ignored those broken promises of Germany and Italy. They knew that the enemy countries were arming but they made no effort to arm themselves or prepare in any way to meet the terrible crisis which is now upon us.
I am opposed to this plebiscite being held, and I have four reasons for opposing it. First, I think it is unnecessary and unfair. Second, I think the money being expended! for this purpose should be used for other purposes where it wouldi do more good. True, it may be only a matter of $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, but every dollar counts at the present time, and there is no reason why we should waste one dollar or three million dollars. Third, it is a waste of valuable time. If the Prime Minister intends to bring in compulsory service for overseas-I think it is fair to
assume that he does because otherwise, why hold the plebiscite?-why should we waste three precious months? Now is the time to act, and time is very valuable to men who are being trained for our armed forces. Two or three months may make all the difference in the world, and on that count I say it is not fair or just that we hold a plebiscite at this time. My fourth reason is that to hold a plebiscite is shelving responsibility. We, the elected representatives of the people of this Dominion of Canada, if we have the intelligence we should have, are the ones who should decide this question, and here in this house is the place where the decision should be made.
Why do I say that this plebiscite is unnecessary? The reason is that I believe the people of this dominion would be behind the [DOT] government if they declared that compulsory service overseas was necessary. We need only look at the press of this country from one end to the other. I believe that the press reflects the opinion of the people and that the people of this dominion to-day would be behind the government in imposing compulsory service on this country if it were necessary. Furthermore, the government knows the actual circumstances, and the people do not. We in this House of Commons do not altogether know the whole situation. But the government hear reports every day from every sector in which the war is being waged and know the facts. Let them tell the facts to this House of Commons, and then place the responsibility on the elected representatives of the people to decide what shall be done.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that a plebiscite is unfair. Why? Whom are we asking to decide this question? We are asking the mothers with sons of military age who would have to go overseas, mothers who do not know the actual facts. It is they whom we are asking to go to the polls to put their ballots tremblingly in the box to send their own sons away, and without knowing whether it is necessary or not. On that count I say a plebiscite is not fair. The same applies to the fathers of these young men, and to the sons themselves. But these young men, I believe, would willingly go if the great necessity for men for active service were pointed out to them.
As to recruiting, I am proud to say that I have good results in my own province of New Brunswick. About eighty per cent of the men who served under me have enlisted for active service. That is not true of every other section of this dominion. I do not know the facts, of course, relative to all the other

The Address-Mr. Brooks
sections, but I do know that there are sections which have done wonderfully well, and other sections which have failed miserably so far as enlistments are concerned. I have had young men say to me, "If they want us and we are needed, why does the government not enact legislation to that effect?" After the thirty-day training period the young men of this country were compelled to go into the service for the duration of the war and I can say without fear of contradiction that very few of these young men, who were told they had to stay in the service for the duration, complained. I could count on my fingers the young men who went through my training camp and complained of having to stay in the service after taking the thirty days or four months training. Nearly all of them accepted the situation as a necessity, and I believe that if the government had told them that it was necessary for them to serve not only in Canada but in any other part of the world where th'eir services were needed, they would just as gladly have accepted that fact as they did the other form of compulsion.
I have also had young men come to me and say that they were willing to enlist if they could first go home and consult their parents. I have had them come back to me after discussing the matter with their parents and tell me that they were sorry but they had to change their minds. These young men were humiliated and ashamed. But had their parents known that it was necessary for them to serve, these young men would have been spared that humiliation, and I am sure the parents would not have felt very badly about it either.
As I said a few moments ago, we are proud of our record in recruiting in the little province of New Brunswick. We have more than filled our quota on every occasion. That is also true of other sections. The little province of Prince Edward Island has a record of which it may justly be proud. I think most men have enlisted from a spirit of patriotism. I am quite satisfied of that. And may I point out to hon. members that in New Brunswick we have a mixed population? We have in the north our Acadians, of whom we are justly proud, and then we have in the south the descendants of the Loyalists, the Scotch, the Irish and the English. All these races in New Brunswick have been doing and are doing their share. The Acadians from the north have come to my camp in large numbers, splendid young men, as have men from every other section of the province.
There is another reason why possibly we have had more enlistments in my province, and this is not such a creditable one. We

have not the war industries in New Brunswick that are to be found in other parts of Canada.
I shall not take the time of the house to go into that to any extent, but I should like to give the following facts which were obtained in a study prepared for the Dalhousie University Bulletin on Public Affairs for the year 1940.
On a per capita basis, Munitions and Supply contracts to the end of 1940 amounted to $63 per person for Canada as a whole, but only to $19 for the maritimes. Conditions have changed somewhat for the better since then. Again, on the basis of $1,000 invested in industry, the figures show $205 for the dominion as a whole and $112 for the maritimes.
Government grants to industry for capital equipment have gone 42 per cent to Ontario, 41 per cent to Quebec, 10 per cent to the prairies, 4 per cent to British Columbia since then that figure for British Columbia has greatly improved'-and the remaining 3 per cent went to the maritimes, Nova Scotia getting 2.75 per cent, leaving New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island practically neglected. That may be another reason why the young men of our province have enlisted in larger numbers than men in other sections of Canada.
My own constituency of Royal has done well. Most of our farmers are dairymen and they find it very difficult to carry on at the present time on acount of the great number of young men, trained dairymen, who have left that part of the province.
Another great plea that was made by the Prime Minister was for national unity. It is hard for me to understand the conception of national unity in this dominion. I have not defined it for myself, and I do not propose to Undertake to do so for others, but I would ask this question. Is it unity when many of our young men from one section of this dominion go and fight the battles of Canada and very few men come forward from some other section? I do not think that sort of thing tends towards unity. I do not think that is the sort of thing we may expect to find in a united country. I might also ask is it unity for all the sons to go from one particular family-and I know of families where practically all their young men have enlisted- and to have other families with four or five sons not one of whom has volunteered? That sort of thing does not tend towards unity in a community nor, when multiplied to a great extent, does it tend towards unity throughout the nation. Will it make for unity in Canada when this war is over, for thousands of our men who have fought overseas to return and

The Address-Mr. Brooks
meet the thousands of young men who were on home service and home defence? There will be a barrier raised between those two
groups, and I foresee much discord and disunity so far as the young men of this country are concerned.
We talk of equality of sacrifice. I have mentioned the young men from New Brunswick serving in the army, alongside, of course, men from other parts of the dominion, and getting their $1.30 a day. But one can go through towns and cities and see thousands of young men, after working hours, parading the streets in their best clothes. Those young men are working in the factories and getting $5 to $6 a day. I contend that it is unfair that young men from one section of the dominion have to fight Canada's battles for $1.30 a day, while thousands of others, taking no such risk, are receiving four times as much for working in factories. Such conditions do not make for unity. It may be asked, what can be done about it? Well, we might arrange, if there are no industries which can be established in the smaller and outlying districts of the dominion, to take the men to the industries. Bring the men from New Brunswick to Quebec and Ontario; they would foe willing and glad to help in industrial work; and let Quebec, Ontario and other provinces supply their due proportion so far as service for overseas is concerned.
We -have heard Abraham Lincoln quoted in this house during the present debate. I happened to see not long ago a statement regarding conditions during the civil war in the United States from 1861 to 1865. This question of compulsory service is not new; it is as old as history. The issue has been fought in parliaments for a great many years in many countries. Lincoln, in .the United States, had his own troubles. At the time to which I refer, in 1863, they had the voluntary system, and it was not working well. The war which broke out in 1861 had so far resulted in an almost unbroken string of victories for the Confederate army. Early in the war the southern armies had pushed within thirty miles of Washington. The Union army was in a chaotic condition. Generals quarrelled; armies fought like undisciplined mobs; there was every indication that the Union would fail. Up to that time the Union had depended upon the voluntary system. In some states the militia would not even go outside the boundaries of their own state, and men were called up for service for only six months. As I have said, the situation was chaotic. Lincoln, in speaking
about the voluntary system at that time used these words; whether they are appropriate to conditions at this time is for us to judge:
Voluntarism is the unprincipled dodge of cowardly politicians. It has ground up the choicest seed corn of the nation. It has consumed the young, the generous, the patriotic, the intelligent and the brave. It has wasted the best moral, social and political elements of the republic, and left the cowards, the shirkers and the money-makers to stay at home and propagate their kind.
That statement, I say, may be worthy of consideration by the members of this house.
A few weeks ago we had the honour of listening in this chamber to the Abraham Lincoln of the present day. I believe hon. members all know to whom I refer. We heard Mr. Churchill say at that time:
If anybody likes to play rough we can play rough too. Hitler and his nazi gang have sown the wind; let them reap the whirlwind. Neither the length of the struggle nor any form of severity which it may assume shall make us weary or shall make us quit. . . .
Of "the broader world which lies beyond," he said:
We have to win that world for our children. We have to win it by our sacrifices.
He did not tell us then that it would be easy. He is not telling his people to-day that the road is easy. What is happening in England? What happened in England to-day? When Churchill came before the British House of Commons for a vote of confidence, the vote stood 464 to 1-practically unanimous. Why? Because Churchill makes and leads public opinion in that country. It was a magnificent tribute to a great leader and a great statesman, a man who tells his people what is needed and sees that those needs are carried out, as far as is possible for him to do so. He offers no apologies or excuses. He said to them, "I make no promises". I commend that to the people of this dominion and to the members of this house. We make too many promises. If we had not made promises which we could not fulfil, we would not have been in the position in which we are to-day. A wise man is Mr. Churchill. He makes no promises, and he holds no plebiscite in his country during war time to find out whether he should be relieved of those promises to satisfy new conditions. He told us, as I said a moment ago, that the road was not an easy one. He assured us it would be hard. He told us also:
We cannot for a moment afford to relax. On the contrary, we must drive ourselves forward with unrelenting zeal. In this strange, terrible world war there is a place for everyone, man and woman, old and young, hale and halt. Service in a thousand forms is open.

The Address-Mr. Brooks
And he reminded us:
There is no room now for the dilettante, for the .weakling, for the shirker or the sluggard.
Man-power is needed in this country. We have no less an authority for that statement than the adjutant-general in the Department of National Defence. He told us not long ago, and I believe what he said is correct, that man-power is the only power which will defeat Hitler. Let us, then, not be shirkers. If manpower is needed, if it is needed now, let us of this House of Commons not shirk our responsibility. Let us stand up and vote for conscription if it is necessary, and not throw the responsibility upon women and men and boys of this country who do not know the facts. I ask hon. members that when the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) comes before this house, they give it their full support.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, these are dark days for Canada and for our empire. The history of this war so far has been such as to create gloom, yet also to arouse many people from apathy and cause them to search and question among themselves, what is it that is wrong? To-day Singapore is in imminent danger. It is one of the last barriers in the far east; if it falls, Australia and New Zealand will be in grave peril. I hope that a message has gone forward to the people of the sister dominions telling them that while Canadians still live, they will never permit the heel of nazism or the Japanese tyranny to reign over those parts of
o.ur empire.
It is my intention to use the time allotted to me to deal with an element of total war which, in my opinion, has been sadly neglected by those who are directing our effort. I speak of morale. In any effort the first requirement is vision. It appears to me that those responsible for Canada's total war effort have lacked sufficient vision to see the importance of morale. It is too essential an element in total war to be disregarded. Apparently they do not understand that ideals and ideas are of the importance that they are and that, if we are. to succeed, they go along with the tanks and troops. Hitler's highly organized forces were led on by brutal ideals and perverted ideas; but, brutal and perverted as they are, they led a desperate people forward: in the factory, in the troops and on the farms. In Russia to-day the people are fighting for their homes and their lives, for an economic system in which they believe, a system for the people of Russia. Those people in Russia have gained economic democracy; they have yet to gain political democracy. To those people no sacrifice is too great. They will burn down

their homes and their crops; they will destroy their dams and their industries in those areas where they might fall into the hands of their enemies. It is the morale of those people which is saving the democratic way of life to-day, and has been saving it for months. The Russian front news is the most hopeful that we have had during the past dark days from any part of the war front.
In Canada we have a form of political democracy, but we yet have to gain economic democracy. We in Canada do not need' to be told what we are fighting against; what we do want to know is what kind of life we are fighting for. "V" for victory! Yes, but victory for what kind of life and what kind of reorganized Canada? We hear people in all parts of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, saying, "Well, things will be different after the war." I am sure every hon. member here has heard that. Then let us get a vision of what things will be like after the war. Of course,
I know there are some who say that we have not time for that now. But we must have time for it. We must give our people some hope of a vision for the future. That is what is necessary in order to get our people, as they do in Russia, to go out for total war. What they want to see in Canada is action which will give equality of sacrifice, if such a thing is possible in Canada to-day.
The vision that this government should give is a vision of a better life. When that vision and that morale are supplied, Canadians' contributions will be doubled. If that vision had been given by this government for the past two years, there would be no need for a plebiscite. No one suggests, in talking about a reorganized Canada, that we are going to ask the boys who crawled out of box-cars and out of the jungles and who went into the forces, to get back into those box-cars and jungles when the war is over. No one suggests that the million people or more who were on relief in 1938 and 1939 are going to be sent back on relief when this battle is won.
What is this government telling the people of Canada? What assurance is it giving those boys who have come out of the box-cars as to what is going to happen in Canada? This government has shown itself fearful of great ideals and new ideas. It is apparently afraid to present the people with a vision, which it should have done long ago. The spirit of Canada is great, but this government should give a vision which will arouse that spirit. The men and women who came to this country in the early days travelled in their carts and wagons and faced fearlessly and boldly the difficulties of forest fires in the east and prairie fires and blizzards in the west. In that way

The Address-Mr. Castleden
a great nation was developed. These elements were fought, and the people suffered and worked and planned-why? Because they had a future. They had a vision of bright things to come. That is what is needed- to-day.
Our people throughout the country feel today that they are being driven down a blind alley in darkness instead of being led out with a clear light ahead of them shining on a reorganized and reconstructed Canada worthy of the sacrifices that are being demanded and are being made. Morale is needed in every phase of our war effort: in our army, navy and air force; by the workers in our factories, in our mines and on our farms. Why this murmuring from agriculture? Mr. Speaker, the back-bone of any nation is the great mass of common workers and toilers, the people in the factories and on the farms, the people in the lumber camps and in the mines, the fishermen on the sea, the toilers who produce goods and wealth. These are the back-bone and being of any nation; and when the nation fails these men who supply the troops in time of war, it is failing the men who take the steel. The nation which forgets and neglects these people is failing deeply and inwardly. It failed them in time of peace, and it is failing them in time of war.
According to the statement given by the department, 260,000 men of Canada have offered on the altar of national sacrifice their lives, their blood, everything they hold dear. I want to know whether one thousand industries have volunteered even to lend their factories for the duration of the war. We do not ask that these factories be completely destroyed, but can any sacrifice equal that of a mother who gives her son? Why on earth cannot one big industry; why cannot all the industries of Canada, place their buildings, organization, managerial ability on the selfsame altar of sacrifice on which 260,000 men of Canada have offered to place their lives and everything they have? We are not forgetting that industry in this country refused to touch contracts even when a profit of 5 per cent was offered to them. Canadian industry is turning out great quantities of materials these days at its own price. There is unfortunately too much evidence to show that too many people in this dominion look upon war as a harvest time, the time when they feel they are legitimately entitled to amass great wealth and property for themselves. With their usual callous inhumanity and disregard for moral obligations, they fail to see that the harvest they are reaping is a crop grown on soil which is fertilized with the blood of their fellow men.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the hon. member name any of those men? Name one.


George Hugh Castleden: One what?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: One man reaping any benefits.


George Hugh Castleden: Any coupon-clipper who to-day reaps profits out of this war; those who demanded their profits in time of national crisis. They endanger everything that is worth while in our domocratic way of life. With everything we have we oppose such an outlook and such a philosophy as dangerous in a time like this. We are opposing that philosophy in the constituency of York South to-day. Perhaps the attitude of industry can be no better revealed than in a speech made on December 6, 1940, by the new leader of the Conservative party, speaking in another place. I quote what was said by Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, speaking on the War Exchange Conservation Act, as reported at page 62 of the Senate debates:
I have no sympathy for those who would tax profits at one hundred per cent. People will not work for nothing. Human nature is the same in war time as in peace, and instead of helping the war effort you are defeating it by stripping people of the stimulus to toi-l and run their business right. Leave the incentive, and make the reward greater the greater the toil and the greater the success. You have to do that. You do not do it under this bill. I do not exaggerate at all when I say that I have had business men by the dozen tell me that they are leaning on their oars; they have nothing to work for.
A lot of work they do!
They say: "We might just as well take it a little easier now, for we are only working for taxes anyway." You will get that result in any ease if you take away all incentive to work. But leave the incentive and let it grow as profits increase, and increase taxes as profits increase. There is no other way I know of to get results.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did he go as far as that?


George Hugh Castleden: These are his words, from the Senate Hansard of December 6, 1940.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is awful.


George Hugh Castleden: It is a sad commentary on the national life of this country that in the hour of need, business men by the dozen should be resting on their oars, with our men at Hong Kong needing equipment that was not there. Have we Quislings among the industrialists of Canada? Then the Toronto Daily Star of yesterday, January 28, quotes Right Hon. Mr. Meighen as having said :
If we have to conscript wealth to win the war we will, but people of common sense don't advocate that until the last gasp.
The Address-Mr. Castleden

This man is particularly anxious to conscript the man-power of this nation now, but he says that wealth must be conscripted only as a last resort. Blood should go now; wealth only at the last! In effect he says, "People, give your sons that we may keep our gold." May the people of York South do a service to the common mass of the people of Canada by sending here a representative who will work and strive along with those who say-and I quote from our amendment-"place the war industries, accumulated wealth and the financial institutions of Canada at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the suggested extension of conscription of manpower."
That is the policy the people of Canada want, and this adiminstration ought to know it. I do not think a plebiscite is necessary; but if this administration is anxious to know what the people from one end of Canada to the other want, I challenge it to place upon the plebiscite a question in the terms of the amendment to the amendment : "Do you want industry, the war industries, the accumulated wealth and the financial institutions of Canada placed at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the suggested extension of conscription of man-power?" This administration has passed more orders in council in less time, with parliament sitting, than any other government in the history of Canada. Now it goes to the people with a plebiscite and asks for an expression of opinion merely on the conscription of man-power. People are having their lives restricted by these orders in council in a way they scarcely dreamed of a short time ago. The cost of living is frozen; wages are frozen at a lower level, and agricultural products are frozen at a still lower level. The cost of production on the farm continues to increase, but the value the farmer will get for his products is frozen. What is happening is this: you are freezing servitude on labour and peasantry on the farmer. Sons are being taken from the farms; mortgage and loan companies are foreclosing and driving the parents off the land.
On February 1 a delegation will arrive in this city from the west, to protest even, in these times of strife, against this treatment. These people do not ask for profits; they merely ask that they be allowed to continue to work their farms and produce the foodstuffs so urgently needed both now and for the period of reconstruction. Britain is severely rationed to-day. Our Department of Agriculture says, "Grow less wheat and help win the war." Food is going to be needed as it has never been needed before. Those engaged in agriculture

in Canada wish to make their contribution. They wish to. be allowed to continue to make their sacrifice and do their bit to help save Canada.
In the west, as in other parts of Canada, the people turned to cooperatives as a means of protecting themselves against exploitation by the privileged who were stealing the substance of their production. They found that the banking institutions and the loan, mortgage and insurance companies were bleeding them white. The packing companies amassed their millions out of the unprotected producer and unorganized consumer. Implement and oil companies continued to charge what they wished. The grain exchange continued to steal its millions, yes, hundreds of millions from the producers. So the people organized themselves cooperatively.
In Saskatchewan the cooperative pool elevator company own over a thousand elevators which they use to handle their own grain, and they reached the point where they were handling almost fifty per cent of the grain produced in that province. But what happened? For two crop delivery seasons the car allotment committee, set up under the government grain board, effectively forced the producers to use the old line elevator companies and deliver their wheat to those companies and, through them, to the grain exchange. No cars could be obtained by the pool elevators beyond the allotment, which was based on the permanent storage capacity. To meet this regulation, the pools built temporary storage. This took them through 1940 fairly well, and they were planning to do the same thing for 1941; but the building of temporary storage, which had saved the pools the year before fairly well, was stopped by order of the lumber controller, and the cooperative organization was crippled. In many places it had to close its doors for months during the delivery season. Tens of millions of bushels of wheat, were thus directed through the old private and corporate business institutions, and through their channels to the grain exchange. Government agencies of this administration directly or indirectly effectively prevented the cooperative institutions from operating.
The people of Canada resent this deeply. Special privileged groups in the economic life of Canada have kept on exploiting the resources of this dominion to the point where the situation can no longer toe tolerated. The people of Canada will not permit their cooperative institutions to toe ruined in this way -and that goes for all of Canada. It goes for the Okanagan apple growers in British Columbia, for the western wheat farmers,

The Address-Mr. Castleden
for those who produce the cattle and beef, for t-hose who provide materials and food stuff. It goes for the cooperatives in Ontario and Quebec; it goes for the cooperatives in Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces.
This delegation of over 400 people coming here under the organization of the Saskatchewan wheat pools are coming to protest against the treatment of agriculture, and particularly against the treatment of western grain growers. Farmers across Canada have not been sufficiently well organized to make effective protest, and certain forces for years have been working to keep them from organizing. People do not come down here in war time for pleasure; they are not coming here to cause trouble. These are patriotic Canadians of good character. They are people who have fought and suffered, people who have helped build Canada. They are protesting against the treatment of agriculture, and they would not come here if conditions were not desperate. Those conditions are desperate. This administration has turned a deaf ear to the voices of these people, or those who spoke for them. One after another, ministers of agriculture in this house have betrayed the people of the west, and far too often have broken their pledges. Saskatchewan is withering and dying on account of the failure of this government to provide adequate legislation to protect the people of Saskatchewan.
Recent figures from the bureau of statistics show that the population of that province is decreasing from year to year. People just cannot exist out there. They are driven away from their province; they are driven off their homes. They are driven off the farms on which they have lived for possibly twenty or thirty years. This is the reward meted out by the administration to a people who have produced by billions the wealth of this dominion. They are a betrayed people.
This delegation coming to Ottawa is a living symbol in protest of that betrayal. People and homes are more important than profits. That should have been recognized in peace time; it should be recognized more fully in war time. Mothers' sons are more important than profits, and that should be recognized now. That delegation is coming here to speak for the masses in agriculture; it is marching here with a bill of rights; the government cannot disregard them. This is a demand for justice, and they are bringing it to the foot of the throne. That demand is coming from about two million people. Donations of dimes and quarters, a few dozen eggs, a few pounds of butter, or a chicken were made. And 160,000 or more people have signed their names to a petition of protest to the government. I would sug-14561-12
gest that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who was associated with the grain growers institutions for some years, might explain to them the great battle which is being fought for them. I wish Mr. Dunning were here to speak to them, and I would be pleased if the ex-Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Motherwell, could do so. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in the present government will hear these people, and the justice of their cause. They come asking for bread.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: They will get a stone.


George Hugh Castleden: To return to the problem of reconstruction. During November 1 had the privilege of visiting an area in Canada where men of vision are providing leadership in a real way. I refer to that small university known as St. Francis Xavier in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Through its extension department it has taken education to the masses of the people. When education went to the people light dawned and fear disappeared. They caught the vision of a better land; they learned that they could run their own institutions. Miners and fishermen, farmers and steel workers are running their own businesses, doing their own financing, operating their own packing plants, and in a cooperative way building their own houses. They have consumers' cooperatives, producers' cooperatives and wholesale cooperatives. For the first time they are learning the meaning of the word "exploitation." They are learning what is wrong with the plight of the common man, and how the fruit of his labour is stolen from him.
These people have learned about a system which has displaced profits as a motivating force. Cooperation must displace competition as a way of life. Service for one's fellow man is more efficient as a motive than profits for the few. Cooperation creates character, whereas competition destroys it. Cooperation builds the character of those who work with it, but competition born of the jungle, ruins, with poverty and slums, the exploited toilers and with corruption of too much wealth, those who steal from the workers.
Cooperation has created a vision of a society where economic security can reign, and with it democracy can live. Those people, marching forward, have a vision of a world in which Canada can make its contribution, a world where profit shall cease. Peace will be possible, because some day the profits of war will be eliminated. And when the profits of war are eliminated throughout the world, that curse which now returns to us every twenty j'ears will cease.

The Address-Mr. Castleden

To get the necessary morale established in Canada I would ask the government to do a few things. Immediately it should establish courageously and boldly some equality of sacrifice. It should start now with the conscription of industry and accumulated wealth. Then it would have some right to ask mothers to place their sons on the altar of national sacrifice. Place agriculture on a basis where it can play its part. Give to labour that degree of democracy it should have. Give Canada a vision of a reconstructed land where social justice shall reign, and economic security shall drive fear from the hearts of our people. This will give us the morale for victory which, I say, does not exist to-day.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at this time may I be permitted to join those who have previously spoken in paying my compliments to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
We are going through momentous days; we are facing grave problems, we are almost at the turn of the way. I should like to read an excerpt from page 45 of Hansard of last Monday with respect to the war effort. It is:
These demands will intimately affect the lives of many men and women. They will also effect ^	nation in the following way:
there will be a further very definite curtailment of the amenities we have hitherto been able to preserve. These demands will not affect physical health or that contentment of spirit that comes from serving great causes, but they will make further inroads upon the comfort and convenience of very large numbers, and upon the character and aspect of our daily life.
It must not be supposed that there are large reserves of idle people leading a leisurely existence who can now be called to the national ranks. The entire adult Canadian population, with very few exceptions, gets up in the morning, works all day, and goes to bed tired out at night. In our form of society people have been accustomed to find their own jobs to a very large extent, thus saving vast government machinery.
If all the efforts of everyone were really devoted solely to making war, there would be no food, or fuel, no transport, or clothes. We have to recognize the fact that a very large proportion of the population, particularly women, is occupied in ministering to the needs of the more actively engaged population, and that that number has increased since the last war with the increase of population who have to be ministered to.
The process which is now to be applied-and has, indeed, been continuously applied-much more vigorously, is not the calling of idle people to work, hut the sharpening and shifting forward of a proportion of their effort into work which is more directly related to the war.
Those are the words of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) repeating the words of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of England. I

commend them to this parliament. The morale of the public of Canada was referred to by the previous speaker, and this feeling is echoed through this chamber and throughout the length and breadth of Canada. How many of the amenities of life has this government asked the Canadian people to forego in order that we may have a national all-out war effort? How many inroads have been made into the comforts and expenditures of our people? What has been done to take up the reserves of idle people? Since coming into .this house this session, we have heard hon. members from western Canada say that unemployment is still plentiful in that part of the country, and then we have heard hon. members from eastern Canada, particularly from agricultural constituencies, tell us of the need for farm labour. But we have not heard any policy announced by this government to cope with the situation. The service rendered by the women of Canada in administering to the needs of the unfortunate, in caring for the sick and wounded of our fighting forces, is well worthy of the Canadian morale. The war effort of these women has been performed valiantly and with a devotion to duty. As Mr. Churchill said, the process which is now being applied is to be more vigorously applied.
A number of our members have been overseas, and they have come back and told us of what they saw. We have heard of the shortage of agricultural products, of those things of which we have such a surplus. How much of this has been brought home to the Canadian people? What has been done to make the Canadian citizen sensitive to his or her responsibilities? What has been done to increase the cooperation between our citizens and those who are fighting to stem the tide of war away from our continent?
In the speech from the throne we are told that it is now proposed that a plebiscite shall be taken to grant pardon or absolution to the Prime Minister and to the government for promises made before the last election. A lot of water has flown under the mill since the last election. Times have changed since then. What will be the morale of the Canadian people; what will be the condition in Canada when this vote is taken? If this plebiscite is taken, it will probably be around the first of April, although the date has not yet been, announced. Do we know what the state of the world will be by April 1? Do we know what will have happened in Singapore by that date? In what condition will Australia be by April 1? What about New Zealand and the Philippines? What will Hitler and his hordes be doing in Asia and Africa? What

The Address-Mr. Boucher
will our kinsmen in England, Ireland and Scotland be doing? They are now facing a dire situation. The German and Italian hordes will probably be attempting an invasion of their country. In what mood will the people of Canada be to vote upon a plebiscite to release the Prime Minister, to grant absolution for a wrong? Obviously it was a wrong commitment.
If that commitment was not wrong, why this plebiscite? The Prime Minister has stated that the one point at issue in the plebiscite is the question of compulsory military service for overseas. If compulsory service for overseas is not necessary now, why the plebiscite? If compulsory service for overseas is necessary, when will the relief from that restriction be brought into effect and we in Canada be given an opportunity to do our whole part in this war? As I say, this plebiscite cannot be taken until on in April. The soldier is entitled to vote. How long will it be before a complete record of the plebiscite reaches Ottawa?
Assuming that the plebiscite is one hundred per cent satisfactory to the Prime Minister and his government, how long will it take them to put the machinery of compulsory service overseas into operation? Will he put it into operation? How long will it be before the men will be ready to commence training? How long will it take to make a soldier capable of serving overseas? When we look at things from that perspective, and consider that length of time, we can only come to the conclusion that it will be into next winter before we shall have results. Anything can happen between now and then.
What is this plebiscite? The Prime Minister has stated to the house, as reported at page 51 of Hansard, that the plebiscite is going to be worded thus:
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?
His statement to this house was that such was the bone of contention. Is the plebiscite being placed before the Canadian people to ask them if they are in favour of sending men by compulsory selection overseas? Is that what this plebiscite states? Why does he not ask parliament, and not the people, is it in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men? The plebiscite states "for military service." It does not say "overseas service". What is the answer to that question? Is it not asking this question: Are you willing to exonerate the Prime Minister and the government from
44561-121	'	.
any commitments they ever made in any manner with respect to sending men into the military forces?
The people of Canada are to be asked that question at one of the most critical times that you and I, Mr. Speaker, or any other member of this house could conceive, of. If that plebiscite is necessary, if any pardon is necessary, we have here in this House of Commons 245 members elected, with great responsibility, to do a terrific task and to represent the people who sent us to parliament.
What are the duties of the private member of this house? They are certainly not to formulate policy. Our task, to judge by the past performance of this administration, is not to pass legislation, because we sat here for thirteen days in November without any legislation before us. The principal policy announced in the speech from the throne this session is that the country be asked to forgive the government for its past commitments with respect to raising men. We had the priceceiling legislation passed a few days before parliament was called into session and we have orders in council passed every day whether parliament is sitting or not. What better authority can I quote than the Prime Minister himself for my statement that parliament should decide this question? I shall quote passages from statements made by the Prime Minister as far back as March 30, 1939, when speaking in this house he said, as reported at page 2612 of Hansard:
If Canada is faced by the necessity of making a decision on the most se.rious and momentous issue that can face a nation, whether or not to take part in war, the principle of responsible , government which has been our guide and our goal for a century past, demands that that decision be made by the parliament of Canada.
Again, from the same page:
Whether it has been in reference to the application of sanctions under Article 16 of the covenant of the league or to participation in wars apart altogether from the league, Canada's position has been the same, namely, that in either case the approval of parliament will be required.
Again!
The Canadian parliament reserves to itself the right to declare, in the light of the circumstances existing at the time, to what extent, if at all, Canada will participate in conflicts in which other members of the commonwealth may be engaged.
Again the Prime Minister comes back with the same thing on the same day, as reported at page 2618 of Hansard:
My immediate purpose in quoting the statement, as will be apparent from the context, was to emphasize the continuity of Liberal policy as regards parliamentary control, the view which was held then and which we as a
The Address-Mr. Boucher

government hold to-day, that in the great as in the small issues of a nation's policy, the policy of self-government which we have followed for a century makes it essential that parliament and no other body should decide.
Yet the policy for a century must now be discarded and this question referred to the people of Canada!
Again, as reported at page 48 of Hansard of Monday last the Prime Minister said!:
If the issue of conscription for service overseas is to be fought out, the place for it to be fought out is on the floor of this parliament.
Again, as reported at page 49 he said:
In a world situation so involved, with enemies on every front, with no one able to say what the outcome of battle in other parts of the world may bring of immediate and increased danger to our own land, the government feels strongly that it should be perfectly free to recommend to parliament whatever course of action it deems essential to the security of our own country, and to the preservation of freedom in our own and other lands.
I quote these passages to show that in this parliament some responsibility must be assumed by the members, some questions of national import must be dealt with, some duties must be performed. Is it not our duty to deal with the question raised in this plebiscite? But instead we have a plebiscite by which the people are asked to decide.
What is the purpose of the plebiscite in any event? What would happen if the plebiscite were answered in the negative? Will the government stop raising men? Will it stop using compulsion to raise them? Will it stop using the selective system? Will it go to the enemy and ask forgiveness, saying: "We meant to declare war, but we did not mean to raise men to fight that war." What would happen if some sections of our country vote overwhelmingly "yes", and some other sections overwhelmingly "no"? Will the government still claim to be the champion of national unity? Will the government still feel that to preserve national unity they must take no course at all lest they offend either the yeas or the nays? Why does not the Prime Minister in his plebiscite put this further question to the Canadian people: Are you in favour of the plebiscite being taken at all at this time? If he wants to interpret the plebiscite as an endorsation of his policy and as approval of his administration, what better question could he ask? If the Prime Minister has any doubt as to whether the people of Canada will release him from his pledges-and he does not seem to have any- why not find out from their elected representatives in this parliament whose duty it is to reflect the opinions of the people, and let us get on with the war? Possibly the

answer should be the formation of a government under a man who is not manacled or handicapped by his previous commitments. What was his answer to that? I hesitate to repeat what I interpret it to be. As reported at page 31 of Hansard, in dealing with that very question he said:
In other words, I am being asked to "sell my birthright for their mess of pottage", and to destroy whatever confidence the people of Canada may possess in my honour as a public man, and, in doing so, also to destroy the confidence the people possess in the honour and integrity of the government.
Are we still in the days of the Tudor kings, of the Jameses, and of the policy of the divine right of kings, or has it just come down to the divine right of King?
Apart, however, from the wisdom, the folly or the blunder of a plebiscite at this time, I should like to express what I take to be the opinion of the agriculturists in my riding. The fanners of my riding are to a large extent men operating farms of from 100 to 400 acres. Their pursuits are the dairying industry, the hog industry, the beef industry, and egg production. Like most farmers, for the last ten or fifteen years they have gone through very difficult times. Many of the farms have been left idle. Within the last few years, conditions, through the increased demands for their supplies, and through federal and provincial government subsidies of one kind or another, have greatly improved. They have not sufficiently improved, however, to attract to' the farms the help which is required, or to keep on the farms the men who are already there. Go through the rural centres in eastern Ontario and look for young people, and you will find that many of our rural centres are like Goldsmith's deserted village. School attendance has greatly decreased from what it has been at any time within the past twenty years. Aggravating this condition is the policy of calling to the armed forces farmers' sons and farm help upon short notice. Repeatedly and almost constantly I have found agricultural workers being called for military training and given ten days to apply for postponement when seven or eight of the ten days have already elapsed before the notice is received. It is annoying and, I say, alarming to see how many boys are being called for military service when they are the sole persons running the farm or the main help on that farm, and are totally indispensable to the production of milk, cheese, beef, bacon and eggs.
When national registration was taken, information was given to the military authorities and to the government to indicate what

The Address-Mr. Boucher
men were available with least impairment of our war effort. The Prime Minister has himself stated that agriculture is a very essential part of our war effort. Something will have to be done to provide labour in view of the increasing demand for food, involving greater production. If that is the situation, and if this information has been made available through national registration, why should men have been called up who are the only help on the , farm and where they are essential to necessary agricultural production? Truly, postponements can be granted. To my own knowledge many have been granted. But any man who appreciates the problems of the farmer will realize the difficulties of putting in a crop, of growing the produce required, without some assurance as to the help which will be obtainable for reaping it. The farmer must plant1 his crop from the viewpoint of the available help, not at present, but six months, a year, or even two years ahead. Many farmers to-day, even within twenty miles of this capital city, are being compelled to reduce their stock, and even to quit their occupation, on account of shortage of help. I believe that this essential part of our farm problem, coupled with our war problems, should long before now have been taken into consideration by parliament. A broad and comprehensive scheme of calling men to military service in some order, with some certainty, should have been placed before our people. It may not be possible under such a scheme to state just when a certain man is going to be called, but the order in which men are to be called in relation to their occupations should be announced. I believe it is the policy of the government to call up men in accordance with age and1 marital status. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the occupation of a man in civilian life is an important factor. If a man is engaged in a productive capacity in an essential war industry, that point should be taken into consideration, and he should have some certainty as to the necessity of his appearing for military training, and as to those who should appear before he does.
Any man who has knowledge of the agricultural industry-and there are few here who have not-will realize the amount of foresight and planning required to produce the products which are so essential to our requirements, and how difficult it will be, under the present policy of this government, for a farmer owning anywhere from 20 to 160 head of cattle, as is the case with many in my riding, to operate his farm if his son or his hired man is called for military service, given ten days to apply for postponement, and does not know until, perhaps, two or three days before the time for reporting, whether
he is to report or whether the postponement is granted. What is the farmer to do if postponement is not granted, when help cannot be had? If postponement is granted, it is to the first of April, the first of May, or the first of July-right at the busiest time. No wonder agriculturists are very much discontented; no wonder our production is not what it should be, when consideration in such matters as this is not given to our agriculturists. Remembering that we are in the third year of the war, I believe the time is long past when a broad and comprehensive scheme of calling men to the service should be placed before the country. If the time when certain individuals are likely to be called to service cannot be announced, the order in which men are to be called in relation to their occupation should be made known. The age group and the marital status should not be the only order of calling.
I believe that for a total war effort there is plenty of work within the confines of the army, the navy and the air force for men of almost every possible classification of health and physical condition, and in my opinion these matters should long before now have been taken into consideration and placed before the people. Back of information along this line has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among our people, who are anxious to have some guidance in these matters. If it is necessary to prepare for the shortage of sugar, as announced in to-day's papers,, or for the shortage of gasoline, which has been talked about for three or four months in advance, why is it not equally important to consider the primary industry of agriculture, and why is it not equally important to discuss or to consider the necessity of getting our man-power armed, trained, equipped and placed for service overseas?
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, January 30, 1942