Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to express my appreciation of the words uttered by the mover (Mr. Fournier, Hull), and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) of the address. I am sure that all members of the house envy them the experience they had in being able to visit Great Britain and to return to give us such a vivid picture of what Hitler has been doing across the sea. I . suggest to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) that he should make use of all hon. members who crossed the Atlantic and arrange that they bring first-hand information to the people all across Canada. I do not wish to subscribe to everything said by the hon. member for Brantford City and the hon. member for Hull, but I think that they, along with the others, could make a valuable contribution toward strengthening the morale of the Canadian people during this crisis.

I feel that every hon. member who takes part in the present debate must recognize that Canada has made a valuable contribution toward the defence of democracy. In my opinion, however, the question we should ask ourselves is not, "how much have we done?" but rather, "have we done as much as we ought to?" We cannot conclude that Canada has done all that should have been done. I should like to suggest that the government arrange now for the establishment of a separate department of government, a ministry of economic warfare or economic planning. I might remind the house that in September, 1939, Mr. Chamberlain outlined plans for the establishment of such a ministry in Great

The Address-Mr. Nicholson

Britain. He pointed out that his government had been engaged over a period of two years in organizing such a ministry and that the staff had been selected several months before hostilities broke out. He intimated that it was not until 1916 during the great war that a similar ministry had been established. His words were:

For every man in the front line, you must have many behind the lines, engaged in the production and servicing of weapons of war.

Although two years have passed, it is not too late to establish such a ministry in Canada in order that we may plan our economic warfare. I am aware of the fact that we have a committee on economic policy under the chairmanship of the deputy minister of finance. The membership of this committee includes the governor of the Bank of Canada and some deputy ministers in key departments. Every member of this committee is carrying tremendous responsibility, and I do not see how it is physically possible for them to give the direction that should be given to Canada's economic policy.

The questions that should be asked and answered are: How many men and women can be used in the various armed forces in order that Canada may make her greatest contribution? How many men and women should be engaged in our various war industries? How many should we have on our farms producing the foodstuffs necessary adequately to feed our own people and to fill every inch of space on the boats plying the Atlantic? As I said, these questions should be asked and they should be answered.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has urged us to consume less. A year ago I asked him to be more specific and to help us decide what commodities we should not consume in order that we might help our war effort. To date the Canadian people are waiting in vain for direct leadership in the field of consumption. A bewildered Canadian people scan the daily and weekly newspapers and see where they are urged to buy automobiles, radios, refrigerators, furniture and every conceivable commodity. High-pressure salesmen interview people who have received pay cheques and explain that since these articles are being manufactured and sold, no harm will follow in acquiring possession. On the one hand our people are urged not to consume and, on the other, they are urged to consume.

Our farmers across the country have been urged by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to produce less wheat. One of the pamphlets issued last year by his depart-

ment says that less wheat in 1941 will help win the war. The government asked as a war service that the land sown to wheat in 1941 be reduced as much as possible compared with 1940. Are we to understand that the farmer who does not produce any wheat is making his greatest contribution? The Canadian farmers are waiting in vain for a lead from this government as to what should be done. I endorse what was said by the hon. member (Mr. Gray) who has just taken his seat regarding the uneasiness in the minds of the Canadian farmers. [DOT] I, for one, am not satisfied with the decisions with regard to agriculture's place which have been made by the committee on national war services in our province.

Just recently I had occasion to discuss a case with the chairman of the board. This was the case of a young man who had bought a farm in 1937, two years before war broke out. He got married after war broke out and is now in the twenty-four-year-old age group. He has several cows, horses, pigs, chickens, et cetera. I realize that the chairman of this board is a judge who has an enviable reputation as a soldier and on the bench, but I am not willing to agree that he is in a position to decide what foodstuffs Canada should produce and whether a man's contribution should be made in the armed forces or on the farm. The order issued to this young man was to report on January 8, which involved the selling of his live stock and the necessity for making such other arrangements as he could. I think the board wisely agreed to give him another thirty days, but he still does not know what the decision will be at the end of that time. The chairman of the board pointed out that by being in the armed forces this young man could look after his family much better than if he were on the farm. That may be true, but is that the policy of this government? Is it the policy to take men off our farms who are producing and place them in the army and to leave our farms without men to operate them?

As I said, we want leadership. We want this government to do everything necessary to see that every man or woman is in his or her right place to make the greatest contribution. There is not an hon. member representing a rural constituency who has not had a great many inquiries from people who have said, "Well, if we have too much food, how about getting into a war industry?" Those of us who come from the west have had countless requests. I should like to cite one case which is unusual rather than typical. This is a case where I think one would say

The Address-Mr. Nicholson

offhand that there should not be any trouble in deciding into what category this man should be placed. I should like to remind the house that at the time the registration was being taken, the then Minister of National War Services explained 'that one of the reasons for taking the registration was to enable the government to tell the people where to go, to direct the people who were unemployed to find employment in industry, to enable people who are employed but trained for one particular type of work, to fit into another industry where their best contribution could foe made.

The particular case I wish to discuss is that of a veteran of the last war. a man still in his forties, a mechanical draughtsman by trade. He has kept in touch with his profession while he has been on the farm. He wrote to me well over a year ago asking that he be given information as to where he might be able to make a greater contribution towards the war. I took his case up with the Department of National War Services and they ' agreed that this man had unusual qualifications and should be able to make a greater contribution than he was making in the ' particular industry in which he was then engaged. But they said they did not have the machinery to place him. They felt, however, that the employment agencies in Ontario would have no difficulty in directing him to employment. I got in touch with the employment office in Ottawa, and they said, "We have no suitable opening here, but the employment office in Toronto, Hamilton or Windsor will no doubt be able to place him."

I communicated, in turn, with these other employment offices, and it was suggested that as my friend was in the west, he should communicate with an employment agency in the west, which would relieve him of the necessity of coming east. So I wrote to Winnipeg, and the employment office there said that in view of the fact that this man resided in Saskatchewan he should apply to the office at Regina. I then wrote to the office in Regina, and they said that in view of the fact that this man was living in the west and that all the war industries were in the east, he should apply to some agency in the east. So we were back to where we started. But my friend, a very patriotic citizen, is not satisfied to be staying on the farm producing what has been described as a drug on the market-wheat. He asked me to take his case up again last summer, and I have a letter here from the Wartime Bureau of Technical Personnel dated November 24, 1941, and referring to a letter they had written to my friend on September 27. Nearly two months after they had written him, they

wrote me saying that there was "a definite shortage of mechanical draughtsmen, and they said:

It is quite possible that if he happened to be so located that he could conveniently make application in person to some of the larger organizations engaged in essential war industry, he would be successful in securing a position.

But he is not so situated. The letter goes on to say:

I believe you will understand our hesitation in making such a suggestion to Mr. , or

to anyone who happens to be so located that he will have to incur fairly heavy expenses in order to present himself at places where his services might be needed.

Would we say to a man who, at some place a long way from where fighting is going to take place, offers his services as a soldier: "We are sorry, but it would cost a lot of money to send you from here to where the fighting is going on, and we do not want to put the country to that expense." Of course we do not say that to the man who offers his services as a soldier. And here is a man who risked his life in the last great war and is now impatient at being kept on the farm and being unable to make a greater contribution in this war. Yet we are told that we should not go to the expense of moving him to places where employment'might be found and where he might make a greater contribution.

I replied to this letter, giving a review of this man's case, and went on to say that I hoped the department would understand my difficulty in assuring my friend that Canada was doing everything that could be done and should be done.

I believe that without any further delay we must have a comprehensive plan for agriculture. Next week a delegation will visit this city from western Canada, a delegation that is being sent here by the hard-pressed people of Saskatchewan. Certain newspapers have suggested that if these men can find money to travel to Ottawa conditions in the west cannot be very difficult. Those who make this suggestion do a great injustice to the people of Saskatchewan. The contributions to send these people here will not average twenty-five cents per person, so that the suggestion is most unfair. I think it is unfortunate that it should be necessary for these people to come to Ottawa in order to get from the government an outline of a plan and to secure a fair deal. I remind this house that we are making plans for the development of our war industries, but we never say to a manufacturer who is making planes or tanks: "We are sorry that there is no other market for your product in the world to-day, so we will give you half of what it costs to produce it."

The Address-Mr. Nicholson

This government is in the business of handling wheat for our farmers. There is no market for wheat, of course, except such markets as we provide for it, but wheat is an essential commodity for national defence in Canada and for Great Britain. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that this government must without further delay outline a plan to ensure that all necessary foodstuffs be produced and that those producing them will receive a fair return.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. NICHOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, before the six o'clock recess I took occasion to ask a number of questions relating to the position in which, it seems to me, we now find ourselves as a result of the lack of a bold, courageous plan; and I should now like to pose some additional questions, feeling that each one should be answered.

First, what is the policy with regard to the production of automobiles, trucks and buses in Canada? According to a press statement a new automobile contains, on the average, about 1,700 pounds of steel, 500 pounds of iron, 60 pounds of copper, 20 pounds of aluminum, 70 pounds of cotton, and 15 pounds of wool, with a few pounds of glass. The latest statistics supplied by the bureau of statistics present an alarming study of the increase in the production of passenger automobiles for domestic use. Here are the figures of sales, month by month, in the years 1939, 1940 and 1941:

January ., February .

March____

April____

May

Of malt liquors the apparent consumption was:

Year Gallons

1939 63,204,917

1940 66,196,961

1941 78,529,426

For wines the figures are:

Year Gallons

1939 3,461,867

1940 4,012,917

1941 4,812,614

I am sorry that the provincial governments have not yet submitted statements concerning their operations for the past year-at least only three have done so. Gross sales were reported as follows:

1939 1940 1941Gallons Gallons GallonsN.B

3,714,000 5,209,000 6,627,000Man

5,947,000 6,653,000 7,887,000B.G

13,758,000 14,960,000 17,590,000

Recently, on October 22 to be exact, a delegation representing many churches and temperance organizations waited upon the government in Ottawa. Representing the Roman Catholic church was Rev. Canon Philippe Casgrain on behalf of His Eminence Cardinal Villeneuve. Representing the Church of England was Canon Judd, of Toronto. Rev. T. Christie Innes represented the Presbyterian church and Rev. Peter Bryce represented the moderator of the United church. There were representatives from the. Baptists, the Evangelical church, the Salvation army and various temperance bodies. This delegation had been here a year ago, and at that time were, I understand, promised that the government would give their representations careful consideration. That is a favourite expression with this government; "The matter is being considered." We have been told that so often that we are getting most impatient.

This delegation asked:

1. That sale of alcoholic beverages in taverns, beer rooms, -wine shops, et cetera be discontinued and that sale of such beverages be confined entirely to government-owned liquor stores.

2. That sale from government liquor stores be permitted only between the hours of three o'clock in- the afternoon and eight o'clock in the evening, and on week-days only.

3. That all advertising of liquor in Canada be forbidden except in the place of sale.

4. That when the request in item 1 is implemented, an order issue from the Department of Defence closing all wet canteens in military establishments.

I understand that the Minister of National War Services (Mr.- Thorson) referred to the divided jurisdiction between the dominion and the provincial governments in the matter of liquor control, but he assured the deputation that the matter would be given earnest con-

FMr. Nicholson.1

sideration by the government. That is an old story also, about divided jurisdiction. But we have the War Measures Act, which gives this government the right to do anything that is in the interests of the Canadian people during the war, and I submit that the representations made by this representative group were very reasonable. They have formulated these representations, taking into consideration the minimum that should be expected to win the support of the Canadian people.

I was interested in reading an article in the November issue of the Fortnightly, written by the eminent scientist J. B. S. Haldane. Writing about their problem in Great Britain, he said:

The less food we waste the less we must import. A very large amount of barley and hops grown in this country is used for making beer, which has practically no food value. The barley could be used for bread or feeding cattle. The hop fields could be used for beans or other food plants. If not another gallon of beer were brewed, this would save scores of ships for essential imports. But the disappearance of beer would cause grave resentment, both among beer drinkers and in the drink trade, some sections of which are making record profits at present. The resentment would be legitimate if the soldiers got no beer while the officers had their whisky. So the country as a whole would have to go "dry". On the other hand I see no reason why the publicans should be better treated than the little shopkeepers who are forbidden to sell rationed food because they have less than twenty-five customers registered. But this gigantic food waste could only be stopped after a big propaganda campaign. And in view of the close connection between the Conservative party and the drink trade I do not believe that it will be stopped. I may add in parenthesis that I am not a total abstainer, but have very nearly become so for the duration of the war.

I had better explain that he was not speaking of the Conservative party in Canada.

Mr. HOMUTH:

It would be a good idea to make that very clear.

Mr. NICHOLSON:

At the outset I stated that I was quoting from an article by a British scientist, appearing in a well known British publication. But I might say that what Professor Haldane says about the Conservative party in Great Britain might be said of the party in power here.

Mr. HOMUTH:

Why not say it?

Mr. NICHOLSON:

Because I am quoting his article. I am not writing an article or making a speech-[DOT]

Mr. HOMUTH:

You are making a speech, so why not say it?

Mr. NICHOLSON:

I think it unfortunate that this large amount of money should be expended in Canada in connection with the

* The Address-Mr. Rowe

drink trade, while so little money is spent by this government to educate our people with regard to the evils in connection with the use of drmk, and, as Professor Haldane says, to ''carry on a gigantic propaganda campaign." Perhaps hon. members would be interested in an article that appeared in the Temperance Advocate, published in Brampton, with regard to what they are doing about this problem in that so-called godless country, Russia. It states that back in 1933 they launched a strong campaign against the use of alcohol. There was a great and completely organized anti-alcohol movement, with the equivalent of local option. No liquor was sold in the vicinity of the barracks of soldiers or sailors, or of labour exchanges. Sale was also forbidden on pay days and during annual conscription. The advertisement of the sale of alcohol was forbidden in the press, in the streets, in railway stations, on boats and in other public places. Anti-alcohol teaching was carried on in all primary and secondary schools, and was included in the training courses for teachers. Anti-alcohol propaganda was included in theatre and cinema productions.

I believe the valuable work that was started in Russia in 1933 has had results we can all appreciate. The fact that Hitler has been stopped so completely by the Russian army gives a great deal of support to my statement that Russia has been able to make a much greater contribution, as a result of the propaganda that has been carried on, than she ever could have made under the old regime, under which the government received so much revenue from the manufacture and sale of liquoT.

There was another table which I intended to quote, showing the revenue to this government from the liquor trade. Perhaps I can dispense with that, but in view of the disastrous results of the use * of liquor in Canada at the present time I urge the Department of National War Services to appropriate a large sum of money for the purpose of carrying on the necessary educational work to placq the facts in this connection before the Canadian people. I realize that the views I have expressed are not shared by a great many hon. members. But to-day we find ourselves in the most critical situation ever known in human history. The laissez-faire methods that were tolerated in peace time are not good enough in the present crisis. Plans must be evolved by which every Canadian industry and indeed every Canadian individual will carry on the work most necessary to be done to enable us to make our greatest contribution to the preservation of democracy and the absolute defeat of Hitler.

Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General has very graciously read to this house a speech from the throne that has been cautiously prepared by the government of the day. May I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) on their addresses, which were delivered with a dignity in keeping with the highest traditions of this house. As legal gentlemen they certainly demonstrated a skill and ability in their defence of a somewhat difficult case.

The worst apprehensions of the Canadian people at last have become a reality. We have learned from the speech from the throne that a plebiscite is to be submitted to the people in which they are to be asked whether or not we are going to back up those gallant, loyal sons of Canada who are fighting for our freedom. Canada is a great country. No other country in the world enjoys our geographical security. No other country with our population enjoys such vast resources, such strength in agriculture, industry and potential wealth of all kinds. Canada played a noble part in the last great war, and the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fighting the battle of freedom in this war are the noblest of our countrymen.

During the past twenty-nine months the people of this country have done a great deal indeed. I might say also that the government has done something. Indeed, we have accomplished much; but much more could have been done, and I believe much more will have to be done if we are going to win this terrible conflict. We must take the offensive. Whenever and wherever possible we must increase our production of foodstuffs and munitions, no matter what sacrifices may be involved. As soon as possible we must raise, train and fully equip an army of unheard-of numbers on land, on sea and in the air, if we are to meet the onrush of the combined axis forces in the spring drive. We must have our armies mechanized and trained, not to fight where it is hoped the enemy never will be found-that is, here in Canada-but to fight wherever the enemy may be met. This also involves the training and equipping of vast reserves to back up our gallant soldiers in the front line. In these days first things must come first with eveiy Canadian, and to-day the foremost requirement is the winning of this war. We are in a struggle that will require every available ounce of energy we can muster. Let us become concerned with the defeat of the enemy, and not only with the defence of Canada. If we meet the enemy

The Address-Mr. Rowe

where the fighting now is going on, then the enemy will never reach our shores. To advocate any other policy is, to my mind, near treason, for when we declared war in September of 1939 we meant what we said; we were not just playing soldier.

Many problems must be faced by this parliament if we are to achieve an all-out war effort. To one reference in the speech from the throne I believe every Canadian will give whole-hearted approval; that is, the statement that we are to contribute to Britain vast quantities of foodstuffs, munitions and supplies. In this regard may I say that if our government would come out with a courageous policy and tell our young men where they belong, whether they are needed on the farm, in the factory or in the front line, we then would have equality of service and, along with it, equality of respect as between the boys who are fighting our battles on those different fronts. If you told the boy on the farm that was where you wanted him, you would enable him to" escape any feeling of humiliation he might have because he was not wearing khaki. You would create a feeling of equality between the boy in the factory, earning $7 a day, and the boy in khaki receiving SI.30 a day. Nothing less than a courageous stand will meet this situation.

So far as munitions are concerned, I believe this country has done a great deal and will continue to make a substantial contribution. Unfortunately I do not have the same feeling of confidence with regard to agricultural production. It will be impossible to meet the demand for agricultural production without some direct, immediate action by the government. I think nothing short of the establishment of a food production board can give the necessary leadership if we are to achieve our objective and keep our forces fed. At the appropriate time this session I propose to ask the government to appoint a national food board capable of integrating a gigantic national effort combined with a willingness to cooperate with all elements of our population in order to achieve our objective in this regard.

The evident inability of the Department of Agriculture to-day to make public definite goals of production for 1942 and 1943, as has been done in the United States of America, constitutes a serious problem to our whole war economy, because, as hon. members are aware, enough food of the right kind is a rock-bottom essential of war-time production and morale, and necessary for our fighting ability. Enough of the right food cannot be secured either, if industry is going to be placed on a cost-plus basis and farm production

is left in many cases on a cost-minus basis, thereby leaving industrial employers to take the men off our farms.

We hear a great deal about preventing inflation, but, Mr. Speaker, unless the increased purchasing power is diverted from consumer markets, we shall have the general public competing against the government for materials and supplies essential for an allout war effort. These problems must be met, if we are going to have an all-out and allround war effort. This situation must be met if our unprecedented effort to control inflation through the establishment of price and wage control is to achieve any degree of success.

I believe consideration should be given to some form of compulsory savings under which a graduated percentage of all incomes in excess of a certain stipulated amount should be paid directly to the government and credited to the individual with interest at a stated rate, the principal to be repaid after the war. I may say that many people will need some of their principal. I believe some plan of compulsory saving should be part of any sound programme of price control, and I propose at a later date to discuss this matter further.

To-night, however, I consider that these important issues temporarily fade under the shocking proposal in the speech from the throne by which the government of the day, with a large majority behind it, is endeavouring to escape its responsibility in military reinforcement.

I listened to that speech-and I have heard many come down in this House of Commons -with very great care, because I realized that much hinged on what the government proposed to do at the present time. I have followed it through, as carefully as I was capable of doing. In brief generalities it reviews a few of the past war tragedies. From there, to the end. with unprecedented cruelty it postpones future purposes.

The very speech itself begins with the words, "There no longer can be any question", but it ends with the government fearfully and feebly asking others to give the answer. It tells us that the government knows we are in the gravest crisis in the world's history now. But the government will not take full responsibility to act until after they hold a plebiscite, either next spring or summer. May I be pardoned for again using those apt words of the Montreal Gazette, in saying that "never in the history of this dominion have so many people been so humiliated by so few."

Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):

A pretty poor source.

The Address-Mr. Rowe

Mr. ROWE:

If the Minister of Marine can take comfort from it, then he is a better parliamentarian than he is Minister of Marine.

Mr. POULIOT:

Minister of National

Defence for Naval Services.

Mr. ROWE:

I intended to give the minister a better title than "marine." I must say, however, that that is one branch of the service which possibly is doing all it can; and perhaps that is what makes the minister so confident that he can pull up the slack for the rest of them.

When democracy faces the test of its greatest adversity, our government, to which the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services belongs, demonstrates its greatest weakness. We have been told that "he who hesitates is lost." Yet we postpone for months the needs of the hour. In other words, Mr. Speaker, while our homes burn, we hold a firemen's ball.

What a spectacle of inspiration to those great Britishers, like Smuts of Africa or Curtin of Australia, has their big sister Canada given them in their hour of crisis! There appears to be considerable confusion as to what the action announced by the government means. It is a topic of argument on the street comers. Some farmers in the back concessions think it may mean an election; some other people think it may mean conscription; some others believe that it means relieving the present government of the great numbers of promises they have made since 1919; others believe that it means relieving the government of some of their broken promises. Others just do not know what it means, but they believe it just relieves the government and lets it do as it pleases.

To-day the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) tells us that it means getting the people's opinion, provided he does not tell anybody what he will do after he gets it. Mr. Speaker, "it is a means of consulting public opinion, when a public body is unable to take the responsibility which belongs to it." Nobody knows what the answer is going to be, and nobody knows what the action will be after the answer is given.

This is the most Asquithian type of appeasement that has ever been proposed by a responsible government in a time of war. Unfortunately it is the same type of appeasement and complacency which has dominated our actions in peace-time failures, and which now so dangerously retards our war-time action. It was this type of wait-and-see policy which held up for two years Canada's air training plan, following the visit in 1938 of

the British aviation authorities. It was this famous wait-and-see policy which made Prime Minister Asquith in England the greatest armchair warrior of the last war, and bids fair to make Prime Minister King of Canada the greatest wait-and-see warrior of the present war.

The Prime Minister takes great pride in his relationship with the great republic to the south of us, and on many occasions he has so stated. May I compliment him on any progress he has made in that regard. Speaking in his home constituency of Prince Albert on February 29, 1940, he is reported to have said:

Canada has done more to help bring about that friendlier relationship between the United States and Britain than has any other part of the empire, even than Great Britain herself.

Hear, hear.

Mr. ROWE:

I wish I could deliver one

of those five-hour speeches of the Prime Minister. If I did I would get a lot of applause. Perhaps, however, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr.' Pouliot) will applaud me again if I quote another part of the same speech:

It is a matter of great pride that I have lived to see the day when I could go to the President of the United States and work out a reciprocity agreement. It took twenty-five years to bring it about, but I lived to accomplish it.

Hear, hear.

Mr. ROWE:

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be allowed the time hon. members opposite have applauded, after my quotation from the Prime Minister's speech.

I am sorry that through this relationship * with the United States the Prime Minister has not copied the example of his great friend to the south. He must surely observe the contrast of the last twenty-five years.

The Prime Minister tells us that he could not break one of those pledges of his. I have not time at my disposal to tell hon. members about those he has broken, but I would point out to him what happened in the United States of America. In 1916 President Wilson was elected with the battle-cry that he would keep American, boys in the United States. But in 1917, when the hour of crisis arose, he drafted those American boys to join the British forces in France.

By way of further contrast I would draw the Prime Minister's attention to the recent election of Mr. Roosevelt. Here is one of the

The Address-Mr. Rowe

promises made by the President of the United States over the radio just prior to his recent

election:

And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.

Since that promise was given, the President of the United States asked for and received from his parliament and from his country the right to send United States soldiers anywhere an enemy might be encountered.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

This is not a foreign war; the United States was attacked.

Mr. ROWE:

She had the courage to draft men before she was attacked; the Canadian government has not courage enough to draft men after we are attacked. That is responsible government functioning in a crisis. With almost frenzied eloquence we heard the hon. member for Brantford City tell this house that the Prime Minister was the first leader of the allied countries to declare war on Japan. Then he told us that the Prime Minister is going to be the last man to draft men to fight her. While the battle rages in every quarter of the globe, we have a wait-and-see policy to draft men to stay in Canada only until we hear how that policy is decided for this great lopsided, top-heavy government, by those outside the government.

We are now told by the Prime Minister in the twilight of his long years as leader that we must give him time off in this crisis to go back over the record. I know very well, and any other senior hon. member in this jjouse knows that his record is strewn with broken pledges. He wants to revive one now in order to make it sacred in this time of crisis. I well remember that famous list of pledges and the planks of the platform in 1919. I remember how he excused himself here on the floor of this house when twitted for having dropped these planks so rapidly that we could not count them, by saying that that platform was only a chart to compass a course no one knew.

In 1925 he made that famous promise to reform the senate, but at that time we did not have a plebiscite so he could go back to York North. In that election he promised most faithfully to reform the senate, and I was sitting here in this house when he said rather jocularly to the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, that he had reformed the senate by placing in it the first lovely lady. That was a reformation because,

[Mr. Row**l

although she is a staunch Liberal, she is a great improvement over many of the Liberals who were there. .

Now in this hour of world crisis we are asked to provide unprecedented millions to supply equipment for overseas forces, while in the same breath we are asked to spend several millions to have those outside the government say whether or not we should draft men for Canada only. Three million dollars spent, for a three months' delay! It will surely be made known to the opposition countries that Canada's secret weapon is a slow-timed dud. When we come to think of it we realize that our position is being made ridiculous. I plead with the government to change their course. Surely they are not going to lead us down this course at this time.

Hear, hear.