Mr. HOMUTH:

Where did he stand in 1917?

Air. ROWE:

I say that no Canadian, whether the* minister or myself'-and I say that in all respect because I know he is the senior member of this house at this time, and I compliment him upon that and upon looking so *well-no matter what province he comes from or what his race or creed may be, can as a Canadian and a British subject subscribe to this bogy of unity now brought up to bolster a broken-down government of appeasement floundering on the rocks of responsibility. If this government, by weight of its majority, insists upon evasion of the responsibility which goes with responsible government by foisting upon the people of Canada a plebiscite on conscription, it will establish definite and distinct lines of cleavage which will exist long after the record of this government becomes buried in the dust of history. Such action will throw into Canadian unity thorns which generations yet unborn will be called upon to remove. Do not, I say to the government, create a smoke-screen to cover your retreat from duty. Do not create a bottleneck of a "wait and- see" war policy. This Asquit'hian policy of appeasement should be thrown into the discard, and let us, as a people, face the realities of war. For the first time in our history we find ourselves vulnerable to attack on both coasts-and the Prime Minister raises the cry of unity!

Did anyone ever see a family disunited when there was a thug at the door? Why, this cry about unity is the most ridiculous bogy that was ever trailed across a difficult road. If in the face of these grave dangers the head of the government cannot preserve unity, then it is high time for the head of the government to make way for someone who can. The welfare of Canada far exceeds the welfare of any individual or of a party, no matter how long that individual or that party may have been in office. In the face of grave danger in the last war, Asquith made way for Lloyd George without an election, yes, and without a plebiscite. No one ever heard of a plebiscite in England in war time.

They had it in

Australia.

Mr. ROWE:

That is not the British way

of doing it. But they were anxious for inspired leadership; they realized that leadership of that kind was just as important in the defence of the empire as was military might. A more modern example of this is to be found in the records of the British parliament, where, on May 8, 1940, Lloyd George rose

from his seat and, facing Mr. Chamberlain, declared that the best service the Prime Minister could render his country would be to surrender the seals of. office. When the people of Britain finally realized the might of the enemy, Chamberlain gave way to the more aggressive, confidence-inspiring leadership of Churchill. This was also accomplished without an election and without a plebiscite.

The situation is no less serious here in Canada. Surely the government will change its mind and spare this country in her hour of peril from the expense and shame of a plebiscite, or the danger and delay of an election. The present Prime Minister has

served Canada in a high position for a great number of years. However, let us realize as a people that while the Prime Minister has served the country, the country's peril of the hour does not serve the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact thaJt we are' now called upon to sanction a plebiscite and a huge expenditure of public money to release the Prime Minister from pledges which he made to the people of Canada long ago on the question of compulsory service, I feel that, should I withhold my opinion at this time for fear of giving offence, I should consider myself guilty of near treason towards my country. Therefore, as one of the senior members of this house, I say that the greatest contribution the Prime Minister could make to an all-out war effort would be either to assume responsibility, or surrender the seals of office to someone who shall let parliament decide and avoid a plebiscite or an election during our nation's most perilous crisis.

Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, about our unity. However, the source of the unity [DOT]of Canada is not the welfare of any party _ or any province; it is the consequence of external pressure. Let us not search for unity by actions that will breed disunity; let us not search for some palliative; rather, in this hour of peril, let us face the facts, not- on a basis of political, racial or religious faith, but as Canadians and as Britishers.

Further, let me say-and I say this with all sincerity-sentimental sobbing about unity in time of war will be, to my mind, one of the most disastrous things that could happen to this dominion. A continuation of this type of thinking will bring us to the end of the war divided, and then we shall have the spectacle of our allies having won a war for us abroad and us losing the peace at home. Let us not forget that it was the sons and daughters of two great races that gave Canada her birth. Let us not forget either that even France has fallen-England still lives. Let us then stand together to make sure there

The Address-Mr. Rowe

will always be an England, which is the only assurance that France in all her glory will ever rise again.

I say that a compromise such as this proposed plebiscite will bring us disunity, class consciousness and racial strife, and in the misbelief that we are defending our system of government, we unconsciously surrender its very citadel.

We stand to-day as a united country. We entered this war as a united country, and we stand in unity with our allies engaged in the grimmest struggle for life and freedom that the world has ever known. Against half the world we stand to-day, not as Englishmen, not as Frenchmen, not as inhabitants of the Atlantic or the Pacific provinces. Without thought of sectionalism we entered this war as a nation in September, 1939, and without need of a lot of talk of unity or sectionalism we shall win this war, if God spares us and we have courage to face the issue.

By that declaration of war we pledged ourselves as a nation to cooperate with our allies to out-build, to out-produce, to outfight and finally to overthrow the tyranny of the axis powers.

Dare we as a people rescind that pledge? Are we to be led again into the "valley of humiliation" to serve the purpose of any party? When we hear flashes from the radio that Latin-America is turning solidly against the axis, that Australia is going to be invaded and is fighting with her back to the wall, and that Singapore, the great centre of our eastern trade, is tottering, I put this grave issue to the government and I plead with them again to reconsider their course and save us from the shame and disgrace into which they are evidently leading us.

I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that' Canada must not wait for expediency, while England fights for freedom.

Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):

Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak in French. I shall, however, make a few remarks in English so that they shall be understood by all.

I must' in the first place congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Rowe) who has just resumed his seat; he surely made a brilliant plea in favour of the violation of pledges and promises solemnlj' made. I believe I heard the hon. member, and also the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), say recently that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had not asked for a plebiscite before he declared war on Japan and before he passed a measure for the control of prices.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

No; I said he did not ask for a mandate to declare war on Japan.

Mr. BRUNELLE:

I accept the correction of the leader of the opposition, but I desire to point out that during the election of 1940 the Prime Minister on behalf of the government stated definitely that he would not introduce a measure of conscription for service overseas without consulting the people. During that election he did not say that he would or would not declare war on Japan, nor did he say that he would or would not pass a law to control prices. In my opinion there is a great difference between these situations. The mandate which the government received in 1940 was a mandate not to propose conscription for service overseas.

It is, Mr. Speaker, useless to undertake at this time to discuss any problem other than the one of war. In contradiction of what has been said, I wish to express my own opinion, and give some reasons in support of it, that conscription for service overseas is not so urgent and expedient a measure as some would have us believe. Let me say that in reading much of the press comment of to-day, and in listening to most of the speeches which are made, particularly by the opposition, one who was ignorant of Canada's war production would be inclined to think that this country has done very little. Yet the real facts show that the contrary is true, and those facts were very ably and clearly set out by the Prime Minister in the magnificent speech which he made yesterday.

In the eyes of a few, conscription of manpower seems to be the only thing which will win this war. Other factors that may be. found in this country, or that may be found in the countries of our allies, do not seem to count. If anyone thinks that I exaggerate when I say that conscription alone will win this war, according to some people, let me quote the words of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) in a speech he made last November in this house to show that conscription for service overseas is the only thing that will win the war and save the empire:

The government's adherence to the voluntary system of recruiting is inconsistent with total war, and yet this is the only kind of war that will enable us to help defeat Hitler. It is perfectly obvious to every thinking man that Canada cannot make a total war effort without compulsory selective service, and also that if our aid is not to be a vital factor in this struggle this empire, and with it Canada, is doomed.

If such a point of view is not silly, it surely is ridiculous and even insulting to the other peoples who are siding with us in this war. Canadian soldiers are brave; they are courageous, ingenious and strong. But the 50.000 Canadian soldiers, which is about all, of

The Address-Mr. Brunelle

possibly more than conscription will bring in addition to those we have already-at any rate it is more than it gave in 1917-1919- spread over the various fronts of the war, will not relegate the millions of British soldiers, and American, Russian, Indian, Australian and all sorts of other soldiers, to the background, and will not, like an irresistible whirlwind, smash every obstacle that will be in their way and win this war.

In reality we have accomplished wonders in the totality of our war effort. I shall not undertake to enumerate the various activities of our government, because those who do not want to see or believe up to this time will not any more see or believe by reason of further proof. They did not change their opinion after Senator Pepper last year expressed the following appreciation of our effort:

I owe it to you to say that it is the gallant and limitless way in which all of you who are fighting this, good fight of faith have thrown yourselves into it which has made our people as determined as they are to help you until it hurts. Before I came here I knew what share of your income you were spending in the cause, I was aware of some of the external evidences of your mighty effort, but I did not know until I came to see it and to feel it just how fixed and determined was the purpose of your people to carry on until the inevitable day of victory against this devilish attack on freedom everywhere.

They did not change their opinion after the Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald, who represents Great Britain in our country, expressed his appreciation of our war effort. I quote from an article in the Toronto Star of August 26, 1941:

If there are those in Canada who discount the dominion's war effort, Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald, the British High Commissioner to this dominion, is not one of them. Speaking at the Couchiching Canadian Institute, Mr. MacDonald, with no wish to belittle the United States effort, pointed out nevertheless that Canada's, on a basis of proportionate wealth and population is greater. Said Mr. MacDonald, Canada's war effort is such that no country on this continent can throw stones at Canada.

They did not change their opinion either when General McNaughton in August 1941, used the following words:

It is tremendously gratifying to us here to be using Canadian equipment and to find it unbeatable. . . . We are not going to win this war by force of numbers, but by our inventiveness and thoroughness in the arming and in the supply of materials.

They did not change their opinion when Lord Halifax paid tribute to this country and the immense help it was giving to England and to the British cause. They did not change their opinion when Mr. Churchill in this house expressed in such clear terms his appreciation

of what this government has done to help win the war. I quote one paragraph of Mr. Churchill's speech:

I could speak of many other activities-of tanks, of the special forms of modern high-velocity cannon, of the great supplies of raw materials and many other elements essential to our war effort, on which your labours are ceaselessly and tirelessly engaged. But I must not let my address to you become a catalogue.

To-day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) read to this house another expression of appreciation showing what Mr. Churchill thinks of what we have done recently.

The opposition did not change their view, and they will not change it, or cease to belittle our war effort, for the simple reason that it is a Liberal government that has done it. If I did not want to deprive them of the pleasure of saying wfi are playing politics, ,1 would tell them many things that I would feel justified in saying. But I cannot refrain from thinking aloud of the agitation which is now being stirred up in Montreal by the Gazette and in Toronto by some newspapers and some other people, which has behind it a faction which is strong and merciless, and that faction is no doubt the big interests and the money monarchs of this country. I will not talk of the calamities .that would fall upon our people if that class were governing the nation. Suffice it to say that after two years of war in which we have made enormous sacrifices, unity and harmony still reign in our country. I shall not praise or defend or speak for any one section or another of Canada, or for any province, for I believe it is time that people should stop making such comparisons as to war contributions. The time has come when everyone should take for granted that every province and every section are ready and willing and prepared to do what should be done to win the war. The performance of duty is not contingent upon what the other fellow does or does not do. Worthy members of the fire brigade in case of emergency do not stop to think of how their work compares with the work of others; they simply do what they should do. It was the Pharisee who thanked the Lord that he was better than others.

There is a relationship between love of country and love of God, on the one hand, and the merit of those whose duty is to serve, on the other hand. But I take this occasion to say that when duty is fulfilled in hardship, in suffering, in danger of losing an eye, a limb or even a life, it behooves those who benefit by the fulfilment of such duty to acknowledge their debt as adequately as possible, either by tribute or by actual remuneration. A doorkeeper, a messenger, a pick-and-shovel man, accomplishing his duty on firm land with

The Address-Mr. Brunette

a minimum of risk, receives between $2 and $4 a day, and other classes of people receive a great deal more. Yet the soldier defending his country, protecting the messenger, the doorkeeper, the lawyer, the doctor, the farmer, the business man, the money-monger, the preacher, the woman and child, receives only SI .30 a day, with no union to guarantee him an eight-hour day. This is beyond my comprehension. I am told that Canada pays her soldiers better than any other country. Well, sir, I can only say that at least Canada has the honour of leading the civilized nations of the world in the partial abandonment of a barbarian custom.

At any rate our dominion is doing and has done very well. If the allies-England, China, Russia, India, the United States and the dominions-were supplying as many soldiers of all categories as Canada is, our cause would have an army of 35,000,000 equipped men on the various fronts. Yet up to the present Canada has not been in a unique position. Ulster, Australia and south Africa do not have conscription for service overseas. In two referendums during the last war the Australians turned down any suggestion of conscription for overseas service. At that time we did not hear that the Australian people had committed such an extraordinaiy indignity in so doing; and to-day I wonder whether the Canadian people are acting so very differently from the way in which the Australians acted during the last war, which I think also was rather a serious war. During last session I think I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) ask with disappointment why our soldiers were not at the side of the gallant Australian soldiers in Crete or Africa or Greece. To-day we hear the disappointed voice of Prime Minister Curtin of Australia asking the United States and England for help in order that he may defend1 his territory. This point of view was expressed even yesterday by the leader of the opposition, when he said at page 20 of Hansard:

What happened at Pearl Harbour may happen at Esquimalt. What happened 160 miles off Halifax may happen at Halifax. What happened 60 miles off Long Island may happen at Sydney, Saint John or Quebec.

I am sorry the leader of the opposition is not in his seat, so that he might hear what I am going to tell him; but while I am speaking of him I should like to mention what he said yesterday with reference to the merit of the plebiscite. These were his words:

. . . the loyal people of Canada will and do feel deeply humiliated. . . .

I may say that loyalty is not to be found only in the hearts and ranks of the opposition. We are, however, accustomed to that sort of

declaration, so the leader of the opposition can continue in that vein. It will not do much harm; and he can go on thanking the Lord that he is better than others. If Canada is likely to be attacked, let us arm to meet that attack; let us prepare for home defence. If, on the other hand, Canada is not likely to be attacked, let us and let the allies take advantage of that situation and produce here three or five times more ships, tanks, guns and aeroplanes in our factories and1 plants which are not exposed to destruction. It has become a platitude to say that steel will win this war, but since it is so true, we must keep on saying it.

Upon their return to England recently, Prime Minister Churchill and his ministers replied to several questions which were put to them. I think it was the under-secretary for air, Lord Sherwood, who said: "Of course there is the difficulty there always has been about weapons in this country, because we are still a long way behind what you would properly call a real preparation for war. We are short of weapons, but we shall get those weapons." They say that we will maintain production, in spite of conscription, by employing women. Without further discussing the question of the employment of women, let me say that it will create an overwhelming after-war problem. At present in England an organization is being formed to protect men's jobs against what I might call the infiltration of women into the domain formerly almost exclusively occupied by men. They say the menace is as great as Hitlerism. If that had not been said in England, I would hesitate to say it in this house, but the organization just mentioned made the statement that during the last depression there were two million men able and willing to work who could not find work, while six million women were employed in various industries, trades and professions. Therefore I say that after this war we shall have to face a tremendous labour problem.

I felicitate the Prime Minister on having appointed an able labour leader, in the person of Mr. Mitchell, as Minister of Labour. On each and every occasion the Prime Minister is proving to be a wise, sound statesman. He has been true to the promises and pledges he has made to the people of Canada- yet strangely enough a certain school of thought has lately argued that it would be a virtue for him to repudiate his promises and violate his pledges. The Prime Minister deserves the confidence of the people. I for one do not hesitate to say that he has my confidence. The speech he made in the house yesterday is one which will go down in history as a most salutary expression of honesty, nobility and

The Speaker

Mr. Brunelle

decency in public life. Lest it might be said that my appreciation of the Prime Minister is based on partisan inclinations, I should like to read an appreciation published by the Montreal Star on the occasion of his birthday anniversary. It states:

Of his patriotism, his devotion to duty and his sacrifice of personal interests i,n the service of his country there can be no doubt whatever. . . .

To-day Mr. King is carrying a tremendous burden under which a stronger man might well have given way. He is, fortunately, in the enjoyment of good health, and he is meeting the strain of public office with serenity and stoic endurance. That he may be long spared to serve the country whose gratitude he has so well deserved is the united wish of the Canadian people.

I might say, before I speak in French, that I completely approve his attitude and stand on the plebiscite question.

(Translation): Mr. Speaker, a single topic fills the minds of all hon. members and, without doubt, of all the people of Canada-the forthcoming plebiscite. At the last general election the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his ministers pledged themselves not to enact conscription for overseas service without having obtained a special mandate to do so. The Conservative party gave the same pledge, but, maintaining that breaking pledges is a virtue, its members have long ago repudiated their promise and announced that they were in favour of conscription for overseas service. Many people in the English-speaking provinces consider that the situation in the various theatres of war has become so different that changes are needed in our methods of raising men far the army. The Conservative party contends that the people are in favour of conscription for service outside of the country and, in order to make sure that events would not falsify its contention, it recently launched a great movement with a view to convincing the country that conscription for overseas service is the proper policy.

In order to put a stop to this agitation and to prevent this boasting on the part of the Conservatives from disrupting national unity at a time when it is so necessary to be united on the principal matters relating to the prosecution of the war, the Prime Minister, faithful to his pledge, has decided to ascertain by means of a plebiscite whether the views of the electorate have changed since 1940.

The question to be asked is a very simple one: "Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?" The people remain the masters. I shall not anticipate; rather, I shall await with calmness the

decision which the Canadian people will give by their vote after having realized that they are the masters and that they have to decide themselves a question of which they all know the importance.

Whatever may happen, whether some other kind of conscription is established or not, I take the liberty, Mr. Speaker, to point out, on behalf of a certain number of Canadians at least, the urgency of making some improvement in the living conditions of our young men in the army and in the training camps. At best, the soldier's life is not a bed of roses. That is inevitable. Many of our young men find themselves away from home for the first time, and they obtain their first experience under rather unfavourable conditions. Again that is inevitable. War cannot be carried on without some discomfort. Yet, without blaming anyone, for we have embarked in a new military enterprise which is still at the organization stage, there is seemingly need to effect certain improvements.

I talked to young French-Canadian soldiers stationed at Petawawa, Peterborough or Kingston. Not being conversant with English, they feel at a loss in the midst of a throng speaking nothing but English, in the midst of a group of young men who follow their own way of entertainment, leaving our compatriots under the impression that they are strangers in their own land. Most of the officers- whom I do not blame, since they are only the victims of the present situation-most of the officers do not speak French and our soldiers can only follow the orders by sound or gesture or through an interpreter. How could they be interested in military matters and make the same progress as the others, in such circumstances?

I request that the hon. Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) whose kindness and willingness are well known both in this house and outside, be kind enough to give proper consideration to the problem I have just outlined. Young men who do not know English should not be sent to camps where officers cannot give orders in French, except on their own request.

We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that the French-Canadians are neither by nature nor formation inclined to embrace military life or join the army. However, they are ready to sacrifice everything for the defence of their country and, to date, they have willingly accepted the present conditions and have behaved in such a way that we should never lose an opportunity of singing their praise. I take this opportunity of congratulating them from the bottom of my heart. Nothing should be avoided that could simplify their task.

The Address-Mr. Brunelle

Time and again, public bodies and organizations of all kinds in the province of Quebec have requested the formation of a military college in their province. I take the liberty of repeating this request on the floor of this house.

Would it not be in the public interest that we should train real French-Canadian officers in large numbers who would be competent to take command of numerous regiments, battalions or divisions? It would help to eradicate the idea among our co-citizens that French-Canadians are not appointed and cannot be appointed to important posts, even in the army. Bad impressions often degenerate into prejudices which, when they are aimed at people of a different race or religion, become very dangerous. ,

There is in the province of Quebec an impression, even a conviction-and I am not prepared to say that it is not founded-that we are not getting our fair share of the good positions in the civil service and in industry, particularly in the war industries. The blame cannot, I think, be laid at the door of the ministers or of the government. A certain state of affairs has become general. I have endeavoured to make suggestions with a view to remedying it. The ministers in charge of our four war departments are very busy men. They are labouring under a heavy burden of work and care. They have not time to attend to everything, and meanwhile some of the higher officials of their departments who do not realize the importance of a fair distribution of positions, especially in time of war, or who do not trouble themselves to bring it about, are taking advantage of the circumstances to push forward their own friends to the detriment of our people.

Mr. Speaker, after spending six years in this house I have come to the conclusion that the deputy ministers of the various departments should be' ordered, clearly and unequivocally, to give at least one quarter of the civil service positions to French-Canadians, in spite of all rales and rulings made by the civil service commission, provided the applicants possess the required qualifications. Otherwise, I do not think we will ever get satisfaction. I doubt that the civil service commission will ever grant our request of many years standing and this is an incessant cause of complaint in the province of Quebec.

Besides, we have practically no representatives on the office and managerial staffs of the war plants and I know what I am talking about, for I have made personal inquiry in the matter. I have myself witnessed these conditions. The competent men may not always be available, but the abilities required

in the training of an office or managerial staff are so varied that many of our compatriots could fill some of these positions. Here again, let us take steps to correct this situation and let those steps be taken as soon as possible, for it is essential that the public mind be at rest and willing to submit to measures which are necessarily unpopular. If our citizens gather the impression that they may not have their share of the cake, they might easily decide that those who get all the cake should be alone to defend it. Small and ceaseless exasperations leave the most far-reaching impressions both physically and morally.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I desire to state that my remarks were made with the greatest sincerity and for the general good. These suggestions were uttered with the sole purpose of eliminating causes of friction, which although seemingly negligible, may be important enough to provoke, in the end, a state of mind, incompatible with the conditions required to promote national unity and ensure the maximum collective effort of all Canadians.

Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the generality of this debate to discuss one or two matters, some of which may be interrelated, but all of which I believe have an important bearing upon the country's war effort. Usually suggestions relating to matters of finance are reserved until the budget debate, but it seems to me to be almost nonsensical to reserve such suggestions until after the financial policy has been formulated and announced, for then it is difficult indeed to have it changed in any material particular. Consequently it seems to me that now is the proper time to suggest a course of action, before the ministerial mind has been set in its almost unalterable mould.

A few short weeks ago the price-ceiling legislation was announced by the administration, by an administration which did not deem it advisable even to consult the people's representatives before putting into effect what has been described as one of the most drastic steps ever taken by any free country. To my mind it was another piece of evidence of the growing impatience the administration has with parliament and the functions of parliament. I know it has been said1 that there was not time to call parliament together before these regulations were passed1, but the fact is that parliament is always at the service of the people who send us here. Parliament had been adjourned last June for the very purpose of being called together on short notice. If you examine the events preceding this legislation you will see that legislation

The Address-Mr. Bence

of this type was almost inevitable. I suggest that there was no real reason, no good reason, why the people of this country should not have had the right to have their representatives pass upon this legislation.

Anyone who has considered or studied the matter at all knows that a basic period had to be set, and that it had to be unalterable. In this particular case it was from September 15 to October 11. No one will deny that it was necessary that this period should be unalterable, but also no one will deny that the people's representatives should have had the right to scrutinize these regulations before they were passed. Surely no one will deny that we sitting here should have been given the opportunity of presenting the views and opinions of our constituents from one end of this country to the other. I say to the house that the action taken by the government was the very negation of democracy, the very denial of all that we are fighting for. We know that at the beginning of this war it was necessary to give the administration practically unlimited powers, and those powers were given without stint. At the same time this parliament and the country felt that those powers should not be exercised in any arbitrary or dictatorial manner and that they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Surely the administration must see how important it is that we should not adopt dictatorial or totalitarian methods in this country unless the emergency is such that they are absolutely required. To do otherwise can be but to create distrust, suspicion, ill-feeling and fear, and I suggest that in future the administration bear very carefully in mind the necessity of not passing any legislation by order in council without consulting the people's representatives unless such a course is absolutely imperative and there is no other way out.

These regulations were passed for a definite purpose as an anti-inflationary measure. It was apparent from an examination of the situation which had arisen since the beginning of the war that anti-inflationary measures of some kind were necessaiy. The purpose of this legislation has been explained on numerous occasions both in this house and out of it. I do not propose to dwell at great length upon that phase, but briefly I should like to recapitulate my understanding of the situation in the following manner. From the beginning of the war until the time when the regulations were announced, a period of a little over two years, the rise in the cost of living in this country was about 15 per cent. Of that amount one-half had taken place in the first eighteen months of the war, and the other 44501-7

half within the next six months, thereby demonstrating that the inflationary spiral was beginning to accelerate tremendously. The reason for that was obvious. At the beginning of the war there was a tremendous unemployment slack in this country which had to be taken up. This slack was used, first of all, to supply additional labour which was required for war purposes. It was used at the same time to supply those additional consumer goods which the increased purchasing power was demanding-additional purchasing power which came into being through the unemployment slack being taken up, through men being provided with jobs, and also by reason of the fact that the armed forces we were raising in this country, our soldiers and our sailors and our airmen and their dependents, were all in receipt of pay. At that time there was no need to restrict the production of the ordinary consumer goods because the material was not yet required for war purposes. We were in the transition period, referred to by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) as the "tooling-up period." Consequently the amount of raw materials required was not so great. But, as the war progressed, more and more men were employed in the manufacture of war materials and more and more men were required for the armed services. As more and more material was required for the production of aeroplanes, tanks, shells, guns, rifles and that kind of thing, it became evident that the production of the ordinary consumer goods, those things which -we use in everyday life, clothes, drugs, cars and so on, had to be cut down, and cut down drastically, and so we had the picture of a daily increasing purchasing power fighting to obtain a continually diminishing supply of consumer goods. Prices started to rise, and the price-ceiling legislation was put into effect.

The price-ceiling legislation did not achieve any miracle. It did not supply us with additional consumer goods; it did not take away any of the increased purchasing power. All it did was to put a limit on the price that could be paid for the things the people were wanting to buy. It put a stipulated limit on the price that could be paid for the goods which were available. The situation then was this. There were just as many people wanting to buy and with just as much money, more money in fact than they had before, and they were wanting the goods that were available at the established price level.

Having dealt with that phase briefly and described the position, I come now to the question of what means does the government propose to adopt to see that this continually

The Address

Mr. Bence

diminishing supply of goods which are available to the people 'of this country are distributed in a fair and equitable manner.

That the system of price-fixing will require policing is almost axiomatic. That we shall require and must have a proper and efficient system of rationing in this country seems to be obvious. We cannot and must not allow this system to develop into a catch-as-cateh-can one. We must not allow a haphazard policy to be adopted for the distribution of those goods that are available. If there is to be justice and equality among all classes of our people, these goods will have to be distributed on the basis of the greatest need, and not on the basis, I suggest, of personal influence on the part of the individual or something of that kind. So I suggest to this administration that it should announce, and very shortly, a proper and adequate system providing for a fair and equitable distribution to all classes, based of course on the principle of the greatest need, of those things which are available to the consuming public. We cannot allow a system to grow up in this country such as has been suggested in connection with sugar rationing. If we are going to have equality between all classes, it is impossible to have what has been described as the "honour system". The great majority of the people of this country will do the fair and the proper thing, but in all countries and among all classes there are people who will not do the proper thing.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

They are in Toronto.

Mr. BENCE:

I do not know about Toronto. I come from a long way from there. The fair and proper thing, I suggest, is to have a system which will provide that a man, whether he comes from the far coast or from Toronto or from the Atlantic seaboard, will have equal rights with his fellows when it comes to the distribution of those things that are available, and the distribution should not be left to any haphazard system which would allow one section or one type of person to obtain more than another.

Another matter on which I think we should have some elucidation and for which I believe the government should propound a solution is this. Having come to the point I have described, having decreased the production of consumer goods, having increased purchasing power, and having set a limit on the amount that can be paid for consumer goods, what does the administration propose to do to take up the extra money that is available? What is it going to do with this extra purchasing power? The administration knows that this must be drained off, and it is endeavouring

in certain ways to effect that purpose. For example, high taxation has been put into effect. High-powered and high-pressure saving and loan campaigns on a voluntary subscription basis have been put on. But I suggest that in the very nature of things this cannot do the job efficiently. According to those who purport to know, taxation has reached its limit. The question of voluntary savings campaigns and voluntary loans has been receiving, I know, the consideration of the administration, but so far the government has not given a lead to this house as to ho-w it purposes to take away from the people, other than by the voluntary system, more of that purchasing power.

Is the government going to allow, for example, those persons who do not contribute to war savings certificates or to loans, to take time off from their work to take things a little more easily because they have some extra money in their pockets and do not know where to spend it? Or is it going to allow them to spend their money on luxuries of the type to which my hon. friend the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has referred- things like hard liquor or soft drinks, as they may prefer? Or, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) suggested a year ago he would consider doing, is the government going to put into effect a system of compulsory borrowing, or give consideration to the enactment of legislation for compulsory savings such as the form that is known as the Keynes scheme and is in force in England to-day? Or, if the government is not going to do any of these things, will it explain to the house and to the country how it intends to pick up and take care of in an efficient and equitable manner that additional purchasing power? The Minister of Finance, although he has not yet made a statement to this house in connection with the matter, stated yesterday in the city of Toronto that up to this time the administration had decided that it would not put into force any type of compulsory savings or compulsory loans. I hope he will give a statement to this house in the course of this debate, and that he will explain the reasons for that policy, because in my opinion, unless something is done, something more than is being done now, either the tremendous pressure which is being created under that price ceiling will burst through the ceiling, or we shall have a type of chaos in this country. There cannot be anything else. I suggest, therefore, that the price ceiling is one step and one step only in the course of anti-inflationary measures. Of itself, by its very nature it cannot possibly accomplish the proper result; it has to be accompanied with a method of drawing from

The Address-Mr. Bence

withunder that ceiling that extra purchasing power which, as I say, is increasing day by day.

One tragic and important consequence has developed from this diversion of our national energy and our raw products from a peacetime to a war-time production. It is a result with which I, coming as I do from the western plains, am greatly concerned, I refer to the large numbers, increasing every day, who have been thrown out of employment on account of that very diversion, on account of the fact that they were employed in the organization, distribution and selling of the . products which the administration has now said must be so drastically curtailed. Unfortunately for the prairie provinces, and unfortunately in the long run, I predict, for the whole of Canada, the administration has not accomplished, with any degree approaching success, the spreading of our war effort from an industrial point of view across the whole of this dominion. No real attempt has yet been made to iron out what some of us have referred to before in this house as the economic Sectionalism of the country, and consequently we on the western plains, particularly in Saskatchewan, from which I come, have no alternative employments in which to place the men and women who are being thrown out of their work by the diversion to which I have referred. In this war we have done very well where we have been given a chance. The figures on recruiting which were supplied to this house the other day will bear me out in that statement. But as I have said, in the industrial field, and particularly in Saskatchewan, we have been given little or no chance, and there is nothing for these men and women to do whom I have described, some of whom have been employed for as long as twenty or twenty-five years, even more. They are being discharged in large numbers because their employers have nothing to sell, and thereby a great problem has arisen which, I say, is the direct responsibility of the administration to solve.

I suggest, as an expedient which would alleviate this condition to a certain extent, that in view of the fact that these people have been thrown out of employment through the policy of the government to cut down domestic production and place a price ceiling on goods, -when the administration comes to choose men for positions-of which the Prime Minister suggested there would be quite a number-in connection with war-time prices and trade board appointments, first preference should be given to those people who have been so deprived of a living by the government's own action. I assert that they are entitled to the first consideration. After all,

44561-7i

what better men could be found to act in the administration of price controls, of rationing and so on, than the people who have been dealing in these products for so many years? Who can know better the prices and the qualities of goods than those who have been dealing in them, handling them, distributing them over so many years? I seriously commend this suggestion to the administration. Mr. Churchill, when he was in Ottawa, said that there is a place in this war for everyone. I suggest that the administration as speedily as possible see to it that the services of these people are utilized.

Quite a lot has been said lately on the subject of compulsory service, and I do not propose to traverse the arguments which have taken place in this house or have been going on in the country during the past few weeks. The administration has now announced its intention of seeking to be absolved from what it believes to be a binding commitment. All I have to say in that regard is that, if a thing is necessary for the preservation of our people and of our country, that thing should be and must be done irrespective and regardless of the political consequences in the years to come. The people of Canada look to the administration and to the members of the cabinet for leadership at a time like this. They were elected as the leaders of this country, and the country rightly looks to them for leadership. The people feel-I say this with confidence- that they should exercise that leadership without fear, favour or affection for anyone. Mr. Churchill, the leader of the British commonwealth of nations, of which we are an integral and inseparable part, the man we are all so fond of quoting in these days, had something to say about leadership a short time ago. These are his words:

Nothing is more dangerous in war time than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup poll-always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature. I see that a speaker at the week-end said that this was the time when leaders should keep their ears to the ground. All I can say is that the British nation will find it very hard to look up to leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture.

If to-day I am very kindly treated by the mass of the people in this country it is certainly not because I have followed public opinion in the last few years. There is only one duty and one safe course, and that is to try to be right and not to fear to do or say what you believe to be right. And that is the only way to deserve and win the confidence of our great people in these days of trouble.

Sometimes it would appear that we in this country do not realize the terrible consequences that would befall us if we should-which God forbid-be defeated in this terrible struggle.

The Address-Mr. Bence

We are committed to a life-and-death struggle. We were committed to that struggle in September, 1939. I have always felt that whenever one starts to fight, whether against an individual or a nation, he must fight with both fists, and unless one does, the other man, particularly if he is fighting without reserve, is likely to come out on top. As far as I am personally concerned I committed myself publicly some time ago and I stand by that commitment, that we must do everything without reserve. That means complete and total mobilization, of material things as well as of man-power. One of the worst things that could happen for the morale of the people of this country would be to give to those people who are giving their husbands, their sons, their brothers, their sweethearts and their friends,

. the idea that those with material wealth were not prepared to put everything they have into the balance in order to save and preserve our way of life.

If the administration is determined to follow its course with respect to the taking of a plebiscite, then I suggest that there should be no half-way measures in the taking of that vote. I was astonished to see in the press the suggestion by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) that we might use the 1940 election lists. I have obtained some knowledge during the last few months of the 1940 election lists, and I know in my own constituency literally hundreds have moved away from the addresses given in 1940 and hundreds more have left the constituency. Therefore, if a vote is to be taken, I urge that it be taken properly, and that everyone who is qualified be allowed to vote. Further, if the 1940 election lists were used, there are a number of men in our armed forces to-day who were not qualified to vote two years ago; they would be deprived of their vote.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

The hon. member is talking nonsense.

Mr. BENCE:

The hon. member will have his opportunity to speak. He has never been backward about speaking in this house or interrupting other speakers when he felt like it. Men who were under twenty-one years of age in 1940 were not qualified to vote.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is recruiting the women of our country for service in the ranks, and I understand that the response has been excellent. This is a matter of great satisfaction, and I am pleased to remember that it was my friend and colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who first suggested this matter in this house during this parliament. In connection with the matter of raising a women's army and women's

air force I have this warning to offer to the administration: that those women should be used for the purpose for which that force was intended, namely, to replace category A men in order that those men might be available for a more active theatre of war. They should not be used to replace ex-service men from the last war, men who are not able to grade up to the physical category they formerly did, but who offered their lives in the last conflict and who are serving in the only and best way that is available to them at the present time.

In Saskatoon recently we had the spectacle of ex-service men from the last war who had been hired in civilian capacities, as cooks, dish-washers, general handymen and so on, being discharged and replaced by category A service men. The explanation given was that there were too many general duty men available, that a number of air force men had been brought in from other districts, and that there was a limit set by the department on the number of general duty men that could be used in any particular station; consequently it was the ex-service men who were discharged.

I am pleased to say that that situation has now been remedied. As a result of a request that I made to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), he gave me an explanation, and I am pleased to be able to quote the last paragraph of his letter:

It is regretted that any difficulty arose in connection with this matter, hut the situation is now more stabilized, and it is not the intention to dispense with the services of any returned men now employed as civilians and who are carrying out their duties in an efficient and satisfactory manner, and the various units have been advised accordingly.

For that I was very grateful. But in the next mail I received a letter from the secretary of the Saskatoon branch of the Canadian Legion advising me that there was further trouble in this regard and that his branch had been officially notified that about fifty exservice men employed at No. 4 service flying training school were being discharged at the end of this month and being replaced by the women's air force. Was this, I ask, the reason why a women's army or air force was raised? I suggest it was not. There is a job for women in the service of this country, but it is not to displace men like that. I warn this administration that there will be a storm of indignation if, in its zeal to raise that army so rapidly, it allows this kind of thing to happen. To let that course be followed is, in my opinion, nothing short of disgraceful, and the government should take immediate steps to see that the situation is rectified.

Mr. EDOUARD LACROIX (Beauce) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, the situation in which we find ourselves at this juncture is so serious that I feel in duty bound to rise in this house and express my viewpoint which apparently does not coincide exactly with opinions put forth until now.

To speak his mind fully is at times unpleasant to a public man, for someone's feelings may be hurt. Still I wish, at the very outset, to assure the hon. members of this house that my remarks reflect my sincerest convictions and that I would deem myself unworthy of public service were I to remain silent at this time.

My family first came to Canada in 1660, which means that I am rooted to the soil and that my viewpoint is thoroughly Canadian, solely Canadian and nothing more. I am a Canadian living in his homeland, who was bom here, who understands all that a Canadian heart can feel and whose wish it is to ensure by every means in his power the greatest possible happiness for the generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, what is the present purpose of certain extremists from Toronto?-for such is the origin of that whirlwind of disunity spreading throughout our fair Canada at the present time.

Unity between the two great races in this country would mean in the eyes of this handful of nervous individuals a la Hepburn an absolute obligation to think and act in accordance with their own narrow conception of things. It would mean submitting to the dictates and personal interest of a few individuals who, for one reason or another, would wish bo see the government of this country entrusted to their hands the better to sabotage the future of those inhabitants so that the appetites of these extremists might be satisfied.

Two great races, between 7 and 8 millions in number, true Canadians all, count for little or nothing in the calculations of such ambitious people who in time leave for Bermuda or elsewhere so that their heirs may be spared succession or other duties or even taxes directly attributable to their own blind, excessive and unreasonable demands.

The war effort which has been demanded in such sections is too great for a young country of twelve million inhabitants. Nothing was being done fast enough; to hear them, more is forever required, more man-power; there never is enough man-power according to them-production is always insufficient- and the cry goes out for more, and more and yet more.

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)

To-day, these extremists are beginning to feel the effects of their exaggerations. One must pay and in order not to pay, they would transfer upon the shoulders of generations to come the excessive burden of this costly war.

They have, first, to secure the services of a new leader-and of course the security of his well-being is guaranteed for his lifetime-then conscription is taken as the battle standard- it worked so well with the same leader in 1917-

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that such extremists can find some measure of support from a few of our friends who force the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to make such concessions.

Because to ask the people of Canada, by means of a plebiscite, to release the government from its solemn promises, is surely a terrible concession to the extremists.

At the last general election, 90 per cent of the public men of Canada, and I am one of them, have said that they would always be opposed to conscription for sending troops outside of Canada. Indeed, in 1939, I affirmed the same convictions right in this chamber.

Some will say: Give a free hand to the government; you must have confidence in the Prime Minister who will never enforce conscription for overseas service.

I have confidence in my leader. I have supported him on every occasion since 1925.

But if we release the government from its sacred promises, what would follow should the Right Hon. Prime Minister disappear from the scene? Mr. Speaker, I wish the Right Hon. Prime Minister long life, health, happiness, but God alone can prolong his life. Who in this house is sure of to-morrow? And what if our hon. leader were to disappear sooner or later? For what reasons should we leave the known for the unknown? No, no, I, for one, think the issue at stake too important to run such a risk.

Mr. Speaker, if this measure is so vital in 1942, why was it not brought up during the 1940 election? Is the situation more desperate in 1942 than it was in 1940?

That is what I wish to discuss fully. I hope to prove by an official document that the reverse is true.

To mv mind, Canada has done more than her share and it is about time someone should say so on the floor of this house; the voter is not the only one bound by his duty.

We have a right to ask ourselves if some military authorities are absolutely reasonable when they tell the public as they did again the day before yesterday: Canada is in great danger; Canada is encircled by the enemy;

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)

we must wake up; we must stand shoulder to shoulder, close our ranks; young men must enlist, go and fight overseas.

Mr. Speaker, those flights of oratory are nothing but a state of nerves. Our country is in danger, in immediate danger, encircled, go and fight in Europe, repeat those nervous people.. .Well, if the country is in so great a danger, let us keep our man-power here; call back here, immediately, shall I say to the military authorities, our army of volunteers stationed overseas.

That would be more logical to defend our people, our land, everything dear to us. Charity begins at home, says the proverb; apply it.

Are we in a more precarious position than we were in 1940, even in 1941? I say no, a thousand times no. And I shall prove it. Since 1940, the number of our allies has increased by 180 millions of Russians and by 130 millions of Americans. Since 1940, our factories have functioned at full capacity.

In a booklet entitled "Canada at war", No. 4, published by the office of Public Information under the authority of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), and dated December 4, 1941, I find figures that are very eloquent when compared with those of other countries.

Page 6, I read:

To-day about forty per cent of our national revenue goes to war needs.

Further down under the heading: "Armed forces" we read that the following figures are necessarily a rough estimate, but nearly accurate.

Enlisted voluntarily for service everywhere: In the navy, more than 27,000. [DOT]

In the army, 240,000. In the air force, more than 93,000. Altogether over 360,000 volunteers for service anywhere. The number of volunteers exceeds 500,000.

These figures show, Mr. Speaker, that on December 4, 1941, Canada had under arms for service anywhere approximately 5 per cent of its total population. Mr. Speaker, is 5 per cent much or little? I say that it is much. As I see it, it compares well, nay favourably, with conditions in countries now at war the world over. It compares well with Russia whose army of 9,000,000 men represents exactly 5 per cent of its total population of 180,000,000. It is comparable to an army of 6,500,000 men in the United States, if the latter country had such an army. It is comparable to 20,000,000 men under arms in China, assuming that 5 per cent of China's population were under arms. It is compar-

[Mr. E. Lacroix.!

able to 4,000,000 men under arms if the Dutch colonies had an army of such proportions.

After all, let us be honest about it and let us give Canada and the Canadian government their due.

On page 7 of the same pamphlet we read that, in the six months between May and November, 1941, voluntary enlistments for service anywhere, in the Canadian armed forces, amounted to more than 100,000. The total is made up as follows:

Navy 11,000

Army 59,000

Air force 35,000

Total 105,000

And that in the six months alone between May and November.

Mr. Speaker, how generous do I find the people of Canada! Extremists alone persist in exclaiming: "More, more, and still more!" They are more exacting than the Prime Minister of Great Britain who, for his part, exclaims: "A magnificent effort." On opening the dictionary, I find that the word "magnificent" means: "A high degree of generosity." Personally, I am quite content with the tribute of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Treating of the financial aspect of the situation, the pamphlet shows, on page 31, under the heading of "The greatest undertaking in Canadian history", that our expenditures for the present fiscal year amount to 82,650,000,000. Mr. Speaker, this quite exceeds the three digits we learned in the little red school house. The figure is made up of 10 digits, and I feel that many of our friends here are unaware of this fact.

The pamphlet adds:

To finance the fulfilment of its various undertakings, the government needs 45 per cent of its total revenue.

This means, Mr. Speaker, that for the current year the war effort will require 5 per cent more than last year, that is, 45 per cent of the country's total income, as compared with 37 per cent in England during 1941.

On page 58 of the same pamphlet, in the last paragraph, I find the following:

Combining the war expenditure with the ordinary expenditure of all the administrative services of Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, it will be necessary, in order to foot the bill, that the citizens of Canada contribute approximately 50 cents out of every dollar of income.

On page 66 of the same pamphlet, I find a comparative table showing the taxes paid by the citizen of Canada and the citizen of the

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)

United States. The Canadian citizen with an income of SI,600 pays in income and national defence taxes S71 a year, against $6 paid by the citizen of the United States enjoying a similar income. A Canadian earning S3,000 a year will pay S355, while the American of similar income will pay S138. On an income of 15,000 the Canadian citizen will pay $925 and the citizen of the United States $375. An income of $10,000 is taxed $2,930 in Canada against $1,305 in the United States and a $20,000 income pays $8,030 in Canada against $4,614 in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to make this comparison in order to show where Canada is being led by its war effort and to see whether it is true, as some extremists contend, that Canada is not doing its duty and its whole duty.

Moreover, on the 4th of December last, there was no question of lending Great Britain $700,000,000 without interest for the duration of the war, nor of making to England an outright gift of one billion dollars worth of foodstuffs, munitions of war, etc., in addition to maintaining our own forces overseas.

I quote the following words spoken by the Prime Minister and printed on page 42 of Hansard:

For the future, in addition to the financial provision for raising and maintaining Canada's own armed forces, the government will, as a part of Canada's direct contribution to the defeat of the axis, ask parliament to make provision for meeting Britain's shortage of Canadian dollars by supplying, free of charge and without obligation, to Britain, munitions of war, raw materials, and foodstuffs up to an amount of one billion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, what a beautiful country we live in, what splendid people we are! The assumption of these obligations represents the discharging of the debt of a noble son towards his father. However, this son, Canada, has, in the past, been very generous to his father.

Our national debt, which, in 1911, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier's administration stood at $300,000,000, had exceeded $3,000,000,000 in 1920, and will stand at more than $6,000,000,000 in 1943. This entire increase is attributable to European wars. Starting with annual interest payments of $13,000,000, that is $1.50 per person in 1911, we shall attain the figure of $200,000,000 in interest, in 1943. This represents a sum of $16 a year for each Canadian. Still I would be satisfied if I were sure that this last billion dollars is a final payment on the account of our total independence. But we have no such assurance.

This is not all, Mr. Speaker. The government asks to be relieved of its promise to forego the blood tax, that is -conscription, for the release from previous commitments has no other object but the adoption of conscription.

What makes me still more anxious is this paragraph of Hansard, page 51. I quote:

It will be seen that in seeking freedom for itself to act on all matters pertaining to war in accordance with its judgment, the government is taking a course which will remove all legitimate excuse for controversy, and the course best calculated to maintain the unity of the country in this time of war.

Mr. Homuth interrupting, asked:

Then what will they do?

, And the Right Hon. Mackenzie King answered:

That will depend in part upon what my hon. friend and those who are round him will do.

I gather from this that the Conservative party will be in a position to blackmail the government and force it to adopt conscription.

For the last 25 years, Mr. Speaker, the conscription issue -has been debated. My leaders have taught me that it would be absurd to force our sons to fight in Europe against their will.

I am convinced -that it would be a folly. Our line of defence is in Russia, in China, at Hong Kong, shouts the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). Would he be kind enough to tell us how many of our English friends from the British Isles are at present in Russia, in China or at Hong Kong? We will probably be told that the British Isles are in danger.

But Canada is in immediate danger, says General LaFleche.

No, Mr. Speaker, we must be logical with our Canadian people. I, for one, am convinced we have gone too far;, our effort, as regards both man-power and capital is out of proportion, compared to the capacity of our population of 12 millions.

Nobody in Canada wants to lose the war, but we shall lose both the war and the peace if we bring economic ruin on Canada. We shall be the slaves not of Germany or of Japan, but we shall nevertheless be slaves for a hundred years to come. Mr. Speaker, militarism has spelled the ruin of Germany and Japan. It will reduce those people to slavery for centuries to come. Is not militarism in Canada already driving us to at? Those are questions we have a right to ask ourselves, we have a right to take into consideration. It seems to me we must be logical with ourselves. I am convinced we -have gone too far.

Our farmers are already short of help and many of their "ons would better serve our war

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)

effort- by remaining on the land and producing the foodstuffs so necessary to feed our soldiers. There are, in my own constituency some sad cases. Reluctance is shown in granting exemption to the eldest son of a widow who has to feed twelve children with the sole products of her land.

Another young man is being harassed, who inherited his father's farm, with 30 cattle to feed, and who lives alone on his property. If he were mobilized, it -would be necessary to slaughter all these cattle, for there are seasons when cattle are in no condition to be sold, and the land would remain idle during the owner's absence. How many more similar cases could I not mention. I could go on indefinitely. There are new instances every day.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now conclude my remarks. I have sought to give, in my own way, a clear outline of the critical situation in which we find ourselves and to ask the Prime Minister, as well as all the ministers, to consider the post-war period. Is it a fact that ours is the only government in the world having a commission charged with studying post-war problems? Mr. Speaker, it is great time for us to do some reckoning, to think of those who will come after us, and of all the responsibility which rests upon us. Will this government, the strongest since 1867, capitulate in the hands of a small clique from Toronto bearing, in some cases, the colours of the dollar-a-year men who, after gathering some ten million dollar orders, quit for criticizing the present administration.

They would have Mr. Meighen instead so that future generations might have to settle for their extravagance. .

In conclusion, I regret to state that after due deliberation I feel obliged to vote against the Tory amendment, against the C.C.F. subamendment and against the main motion, that is against the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, just as I shall vote in the coming plebiscite against releasing the government from the obligations assumed in 1940 both by them and by 90 per cent of public men in the country.

Mr. ABBOTT:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. LACOMBE:

Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott) moves the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. LACOMBE:

I desire to submit to Your Honour standing order 34 which reads:

Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered, and address himself to Mr. Speaker.

Standing order 35 provides:

When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard," or "do now speak," which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.

When a few moments ago the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) rose in his place, I rose at the same time, Mr. Speaker, and I want now to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. SPEAKER:

When the hon. member for Beauce sat down I saw the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott) who rose immediately and moved, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) the adjournment of the debate, which is the motion now before the Chair.

On motion of Mr. Abbott the debate was adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Wednesday, January 28, 1942