Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Go ahead.

Mr. NEILL:

I thank the house and the

Prime Minister; I have never asked for this licence before. To proceed, I may say that a great deal of ill-will has been excited in British Columbia. The people out there said that this man was paid a big salary as a provincial official, and they wanted to know

The Address-Mr. Neill

why they should be paying him if he was so disloyal to the province. That was before the war, and it was said that it was only a matter of opinion. He has now been transferred to a position in Ottawa in which he can give advice-that is what he is here for, to speak with authority. He is on the ground, and he is also in a position to have early knowledge of any action that might be taken against the Japanese and to drop a hint in the right place. Anything of that sort, just a hint in the right quarters, might make a great deal of difference in the carrying out of a policy.

Perhaps I shall be told that this is unfair, that this is a fine man, and that I should not make such statements. I agree that he is entitled to-his weird opinions; he was entitled to that before the war. But since the war, no -a thousand times no. He is too one-sided and biased to be kept in such a place.

During the last war there was a member of the royal family, Prince Henry of Battenberg, I think, who was married to Queen Victoria's daughter. He was an admiral of the fleet and his loyalty could not be questioned, but he voluntarily asked to be retired. It did not look well to see a man of German origin in command of the fleet, and so he asked to be retired. I submit that in this case a feeling of decency should have impelled this gentleman to whom I have been referring to ask to be relieved of his position, where he is open to suspicion. Scripture says that we should abstain from even the appearance of evil.

We who have taken the position that I am now taking have been called all sorts of names. We have been called agitators. It is said that we are willing to exploit the interests of Canada for our own political advantage; that we are rabble-rousers, Jap-baiters, and that we have a very dangerous influence-that was not said of me; it was said of a reputable alderman in Vancouver. I have heard that sort of thing, and hints of it even in this house, and certainly in the government press. You can get a man to write any letter you *want; you can get a white man to make a tool of himself for a Jap if you pay him enough. There was a man who wrote to the papers saying what fine people the Japs are.

I laid a trap for him and I discovered that he was a white man all right, but also a paid agent of a Japanese association, but he did not say that when he signed his name.

Yes, we are all bad because we want a white British Columbia and not a place like Hawaii! Fifty years from now, unless something is done to stop it, all west of the Rockies will be yellow. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we want but little; we simply want to be left alone, like New Zealand and Australia,

all white. I have no ill-will against the Japanese. Perhaps you may think I have been showing ill-will, but I assure you I have none towards the Japs. No Jap ever "did" me-I never gave him the chance. I wish to be fair to the Japanese, and I think that if we expatriated them, as we ought to do, they should be given full justice in regard to their property, because I am strongly in favour of a Japan controlled by the Japanese, just as I am in favour of a Canada controlled by Canadians. Let us continue to trade with them; let us do business with them across the ocean; but do not force into one nation two peoples separated by something that is wider than the ocean, two peoples who are different in race, in religion, in traditions and in their whole philosophy of life. This difference always has prevented assimilation and always will prevent it, between two nations so utterly divergent in every respect. The greatest path towards assimilation is marriage. Well, the Japs have been here fifty-eight years and there is no record of a single marriage, although there might be one. I asked a Japanese to produce the record of one marriage and he could not do so. We have heard of second generation Japanese bom here going to Japanese schools here to learn Japanese, and that has been regarded as a small matter. We went into their textbooks and had them translated and we found that they were very anti-British. Yet there were people who thought that was a small matter-only the sort of thing that irresponsible people like myself would talk about. But when the war came, it was thought wise to shut down the Jap schools. There were fifty-nine in British Columbia, and leaving out small areas where they could not run a school, the great bulk of those children must have attended some Japanese school.

I have one more word. When the time comes to talk peace, I suggest that the services rendered by Canada and by her Prime Minister should surely entitle both him and this dominion to be fully represented when the terms of peace are being settled, when the treaty comes to be made, and have their voice heard in no uncertain terms. I do suggest-perhaps it is too early to talk about it now, but it is well to get it started-that we should make an arrangement that when peace time comes, we expatriate all the Japanese left in Canada; do it on fair terms, buy them out, pay them liberally. It was done in the present war, I believe, between Russia and Germany; and after the last war it was done on a large scale, some 200,000 people, between the Greeks and the Turks,

1 think. If they could move 200,000, it is

The Address-Point of Order

much easier for us to move 25,000, and it is better to move them while their numbers are so small. Let us settle once and for all this canker in the life of Canada which prevents us from being a united white Canada. And that is what British Columbia wants.

Mr. COLD WELL:

I rise to a point of order. I believe we are discussing the amendment to the motion. I submit to you, sir, that on the basis of your ruling on the amendment to the amendment the amendment itself is clearly out of order.

Your Honour ruled that the subamendment sought to condemn the government on what amounted to a want of confidence motion for something it contemplated doing. The amendment states:

This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers, instead of giving to the country the leadership so essential at a time properly described in the speech from the throne as the greatest crisis in the world's history, on the contrary, have sought to evade their responsibility by holding a plebiscite.

My submission is that the government has not held a plebiscite, but that the speech from the throne contemplates the holding of a plebiscite, which is precisely in the terms of the amendment to the amendment that was ruled out of order. Therefore on precisely the same ground this amendment to the motion is out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think the difference

is very apparent. The government has announced its determination to hold a plebiscite. The amendment that I ruled out of order referred' to a, contemplated future action of the government, which may or may not take .place. Therefore I cannot see any similarity between that proposed subamendment and the amendment which is now before the house.

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):

Now that the proposed subamendment of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) has been ruled out of order, and before the vote is taken on the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) I intend1 to move an amendment to the amendment of the leader of the opposition.

Canada in its entirety condemned conscription on March 26, 1940. Canadians of all origins repudiated this measure. There is no better demonstration thereof than the defeat of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in York South on February 9. Personally I will not relieve the government from its solemn pledge and sacred commitments. Now the Prim'e Minister of our country, who heads the most powerful government which Canada has

[Mr. Neill.)

ever had, would withdraw before a clique of imperialists. Why this plebiscite, if not because the government wishes to be released from its pledges and commitments? It would be so easy for the government to respect the precise, clear and almost unanimous mandate which it received from the people of this country on March 26, 1940. Furthermore, thousands of Canadian voters approved the same mandate on February 9 last; they requested the government to respect its commitments to the people of Canada. I will not mention to-day the results of the by-elections of February 9, but I will speak again on that subject at the right moment.

The Canadian party has sown the seed of Canadian ideals. This seed has already sprouted in good soil. Having regard to the generous and sympathetic welcome with which the electorate greeted our doctrine, we are sure that our ideas and principles will make their way.

The amendment to the amendment which I shall move is not an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but an amendment to the amendment of the leader of the opposition. Lest hon. members should misunderstand the meaning of the amendment I shall move, let me give the following explanation.

I cannot support the leader of the opposition ; on the contrary I must disapprove of his amendment as firmly as I can, because sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 states that: -this, house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have not seen fit to recommend to parliament without delay additional measures designed to

(a) completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war.

During all my life I have been opposed to conscription and mobilization for overseas service. It is not in this most decisive hour that I will fail in my duty. According to the very words of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, "conscription for overseas service would be an error of such tremendous magnitude that it would split the country wide open."

Many of my colleagues have already voiced their disapproval of the plebiscite. They have spoken in this debate and asserted that they would vote against the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Because my colleagues are sincere and consistent and have asserted that they are beside me against conscription I beg them to help me defeat the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition requesting conscription and mobilization for overseas service.

The Address-Mr. Lacombe

This amendment to the amendment will also deal with the necessity of exempting from military training and compulsory service, farmers, farmers' sons, fishermen and fisheries employees, and all persons employed in war industries. Agriculture is our first line of defence, because it feeds our armies and our civilian population. As for employees of war industries, their work is essential to the carrying on of the war and to the defence of Canada. The great majority of munition workers already possess invaluable training and experience; to replace them would mean disorganizing and even ruining our production of aircraft, tanks, ships, guns, machine guns, shells, and so forth.

The government has not the right to commit the tremendous error of ruining or even lessening our agricultural production. Nor has it the right to harm the output of our munition factories. Many married farmers and their sons had to abandon their farms to join up in the training camps. Even more numerous were the aged and sick farmers who were compelled to sell their farms and herds because their sons were mobilized and called for training. Farm labour has become so scarce that we anticipate with great fear the imminent failure of agriculture in Canada.

During the year just gone by agricultural production has decreased by twenty-six per cent. This decrease is reaching such a point that our best informed agricultural economists are thunderstruck by the seriousness of this situation.

I shall deal further with the vital importance of maintaining, and even of increasing, production in our war factories. Many young men who had acquired a previous experience in this line had to leave their factories to take up military training. I know many tradesmen, skilled mechanics, plumbers, welders, electricians and graduates from our technical schools who were compelled to leave their work, so important to our war production, in order to respond to the colours. In many cases they were replaced by apprentices or completely unskilled workers.

One should not wonder, then, why our war factories have worked and are still working at a very slow rate. In order to redress this deplorable state of affairs an investigation should be conducted into the acts of the responsible parties.

According to the war aims of the allies, we are fighting first of all to maintain Christianity in the world, and then democracy, liberty, justice and right. Why is it that the Lord's day is violated more than ever in our war industries? Sunday is God's day. For thousands of years it has been respected

and observed by all Christian and civilized peoples. Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that Christ, whose teachings are constant and eternal, will bless the success of our armies? Our Lord Jesus Christ decreed that Sunday must be observed as a day of rest and prayer. Those who violate His commandments must expect the worst catastrophes. Let the government stop everywhere, while there is still time, all work performed on Sundays, and God will bless the success of our armies.

Coming back to the necessity of maintaining and increasing our agricultural production,

I wish to direct the attention of the house to numerous difficulties which face the farmers and gardeners when they wish to obtain the labour required to operate their farms. It is evident that at the present time our farmers are living through the most difficult period they have experienced for many years. In many cases they are driven to bankruptcy as a consequence of their being exploited by the trusts controlling feeding stuffs, chemical fertilizers, and all by-products of wheat such as bran and shorts. At times when wheat was worth 38 cents a bushel the farmers have had to pay as much as $3.40 and $3.60 for one hundred pounds of wheat flour. Feeding stuffs which three or four years ago they could buy for $19.80 a ton are now sold to them for as high as $38 a ton by the powerful companies which derive their profits from the sacrifices, the labour, and the misery of farmers and workers.

These monopolies will kill the production of bacon, cheese and butter in this country. Fanners tell me they are getting rid of their dairy cattle, and would sacrifice their bacon hogs rather than lose money on them every day. Others have already abandoned their farms because they cannot get labour. Np farmer can face t'he actual agricultural situation without losing his savings and the capital which it took many years to build up. On top of all these vicissitudes he must bear daylight saving time. Anyone with the least knowledge of farm life would never impose daylight saving upon farmers. The government seems to think that the farmer does not experience enough difficulties yet in securing the required labour. Is there no expert on the department's staff who can tell the government that daylight saving time is very, detrimental to the agricultural Class? Is there no one who can show that harvesting cannot be done before the sun has dried up the dew which covers all fields at daybreak? Will the government ever be aware that the imposition of daylight saving time upon farmers deals a very hard blow to agriculture itself? Indeed,

The Address-Mr. Lacombe

it deprives production of thousands and thousands of most precious hours, the hours which follow sunrise.

I see these gentlemen protesting that the farmer will work more and longer hours in the evening. No, Mr. Speaker, this argument is false, and invented in their imaginations. One cannot work in the fields at such a late hour because the dew has already descended. Why not maintain standard time in ail rural municipalities? Daylight saving will save very little, if we look at the immense loss of time imposed upon agriculture.

A while ago I called to the attention of the government the evil doings of the trusts who exploit farmers and workers. During the months of October, November, and December last, the veTy companies I denounced a while ago bought from farmers potatoes at a price ranging from 40 to 50 cents a bag. These potatoes were stored away in huge quantities by financial sharks. The wartime prices and trade board set the maximum price for potatoes at S2 a bag. Once more t'he worker, the consumer and the farmer have been robbed. As for the government, it is still buying from Canada Packers, for army consumption, potatoes stored away by trusts who thus make profits of 250 per cent. The same story repeats itself. During the fall of 1040, for our military training camps the government bought butter from Canada Packers at prices as high as 36, 37 and 38 cents a pound. The same butter- that is, 60,000,000 pounds-was stored away by a gang of scoundrels who, during July, August and September, bought it from farmers at prices as low' as 21, 22 and 23 cents a pound. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I protested against it in this very chamber. I was given the official figures, and the government set the price of butter at 34 cents a pound. It was too late. The people and the government had been robbed and exploited by unbridled profiteering w'hich led democracy to the verge of the abyss.

Before concluding, I wish to point out to this house that the market gardener's cooperative association of the province of Quebec in the district of Montreal will be deprived of 6,000 to 8,000 experienced workers in 1942. Where are we heading for, if not for agricultural disaster? I had the same representations from the United Farmers. The Catholic farmers' union of Quebec also shares these views. We receive thousands of resolutions passed by county corporations and local municipalities requesting that farmers and farmers' sons be exempted1 from military training. If we do not grant the unanimous request of our agricultural classes, if we do

I Mr. Lacombe.]

not exempt from military service the employees of our war factories, we may justly fear great set-backs. Suppress the vital strength of our nation, its agriculture, its war factories, and you will see its first line of defence crumble; you will see the country fall into decay and ruin.

Consequently I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix):

That all the vrords after "this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers" in the amendment, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"(a) did not deem it proper to advise Your Excellency that the government should adhere to its commitments and the terms of its mandate against conscription for overseas service which it received from the people of Canada at the general elections held on March 26, 1940;

(b) that the farmers, farm employees, fishermen, fisheries employees and all persons engaged in industries connected with agriculture or with war industries, should be exempt from military service."

Mr. HOMUTH:

Why not add barbers and

bakers?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question is on the

amendment.

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):

Before the vote is taken on the amendment I wish to say just a word or two. Amendments are sometimes peculiar things. We read part of them and we say we agree; we read another part of them and we say we disagree; and it is a case of deciding which part outweighs the other part, in order to know how to vote. That, Mr. Speaker, is the position in which we in this comer of the house find ourselves with respect to the amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson). There are some things in the amendment with which we agree-agree most heartily. I might suggest that paragraph (b), that the government have failed to "supply the imperative needs of agriculture, industry, and the fighting forces of the nation" is something with which we agree.

It is already recognized, of course, that we of this group represent constituencies in western Canada. For the most part our ridings are agricultural; and we agree that the government has failed, and miserably failed, to supply the needs of agriculture comparatively with the needs of other industries since the war began.

Before coming to Ottawa I took a trip through the eastern part of my constituency, and honestly 1 was ashamed that I lived in a country where the governmental administration of the nation was such as to bring upon the farmers of that constituency the embarrassment and suffering which it does. Men came to me almost crying, saying that they had met the government's request to reduce their wheat acreage and yet could not get their bonuses paid. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) can rise in his place and say that perhaps something was wrong with this case or that case. I am not saying that there is anything particularly wrong with the fundamental principle underlying the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, but I do say that there is something miserably wrong with the administration of it. Men came to me almost crying, saying, "What am I to do? I have no money and the grocer will not let me have groceries on credit even though I am expecting a cheque any day from the government for my acreage reduction." What could I tell these people? And that is the position not only in my constituency, but in many others. Indecision after indecision has resulted from some important point with respect to the administration of that act. Farmers who should have been paid last fall are not yet paid, and we receive letters every day asking what is wrong and why these

The Address-Mr. Hansell

farmers cannot, get payment for their acreage bonus. That sort of thing should not go on in time of war when we desire our people to feel free to fight for a country that is worth fighting for. We are leaving in the minds of some of these people the thought that perhaps, after all, there is not very much to fight for. I do not like to think that: it should not be. I am perfectly satisfied that we have one of the greatest countries on God's earth. Then let us satisfy the needs of the people who belong to and are appealing to this nation.

The other paragraph reads that the government has failed to make mention of things with respect to preparation for the post-war period. I am not going to take time now to go into a discussion of what might happen in this matter, but I will say that not very much encouragement is offered to this country from the point of view of what will take place after this war is over, judging by what is happening to-day to the dependents of men who fought in the last war.

I have a letter which is only characteristic of many that we receive. It is characteristic of the underlying principle that the government has not been able to care for the veterans and their dependents who fought for this country to make it safe for democracy in the years from 1914 to 1918. I have a letter from a young lady whose mother is the widow of a man who fought for four years in the last war. Her dependent's allowance has now run out so that she is thrown on the rolls of public charity-a woman of 65. Listen to what this young woman has to say:

My father was a veteran of the last great war and served at the front for four steady years. His number was 435830.

We may as well put this on the eternal records of this house.

Upon his return, of course, he was honourably discharged. Well do I remember his homecoming and how shocked we were to see how greatly he had aged in those four years of absence from home. However, I am wandering from my point, upon obtaining the age of sixty he became entitled to a veteran's allowance of $40 per month, but as usual he was squeezed down to the magnificent sum of $25 per month upon which he and my mother were expected to live, or, should I say, expected to exist. His strength failed rapidly the latter part of his life; he suffered terribly from neuritis and bladder trouble, and finally in January he was told an operation would be necessary in order that he might live. In short, he had the operation and died at the age of sixty-three, leaving my mother, who is the same age, shocked, lonely and heart-broken, knowing full well those years spent in damp trenches had at last taken their toll.

What happened? The poor widow had nothing. She applied to the administration for assistance. What do they do? They round

out the year by continuing to pay her $25 a month, and when the year ends she gets a notice that this is the final payment. I took this matter up with the department. Of course, we have our acts that govern the administration of these departments. I took it up with the department and got it in writing. I received a letter from them saying that they could no nothing for this woman. I want to read a part of the letter. This is from the war veterans' allowance board:

I regret to inform you that there is absolutely nothing that can be done, under the terms of the War Veterans' Allowance Act, for . . .

I am sorry that I cannot send you a more hopeful communication.

That is a very bright spot, is it not, in the administration of this country's affairs when we are fighting a war and asking young men to go to the front? I have two boys in the air force. What am I to think if I know that should they marry and come back and die, their widows will be turned over to public charity and be obliged to go and bow down in obeisance to the city fathers in order to get a hand-out? Is that the way we are going to treat them?

It is all very well for the department to say, "We regret to inform you that absolutely nothing can be done under the terms of the act." They attempt to hide behind some statute. Well, I am a preacher, but I would say, "damn the statute." Let us scrap the statute and put another one in its place in order to give something of encouragement to the aged mothers who have raised their families, struggled hard while their husbands were spending four years in damp trenches in the last war. The government by reason of the War Measures Act can contravene existing statutes; they can scrap them; they can change them while we are sitting right here. But when it comes to changing them in order to get a few dollars to the needy wives of our veterans, oh, no, no, they cannot do that! They then use the War Veterans' Allowance Act to hide behind.

I know they may say, "It will cost so much money." I know we have a war on and it takes money to fight a war. But before the war is over, we shall perhaps be raising and spending three or four billion dollars a year to blow into kingdom come, yet we cannot afford a few dollars to help the destitute widows of the soldiers who fought for this country.

With that part of the Conservative amendment this group heartily agrees. We are, however, going to vote against that amendment. We do so by reason of another part of it. I do not wish this statement to be interpreted that we are therefore voting on

The Address-Mr. Hoblitzell

the side of the government; we are voting against the main motion too. Let me make this statement on behalf of this group. This group with which I am associated favours the general principle of plebiscites and referenda designed to determine the direct will of the people. We agree with that part of the Conservative amendment which asserts that by holding this plebiscite in the manner in which it is to be held the government is evading its responsibility. We favour also paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment, which state that the government has failed to supply the needs of agriculture and has neglected to make mention of post-war reconstruction. We shall oppose the amendment on the ground that we have no confidence in the Conservative party's stand on the mobilization of our wealth and material resources as suggested by their amendment. Nowhere in their speeches or their recommendations have they indicated1 that their idea of conscription of wealth and resources means the same as the conscription of finance as advocated by this group.

Mr. MacNICOL:

What do you mean by conscription of finance?

Mr. HANSELL:

I suggest that the hon. member ask his own leader, who himself says he wants to mobilize wealth.

Mr. MacNICOL:

You said you did not agree with that; now what do you mean by it yourself?

Mr. HANSELL:

Those who proposed this amendment have never asserted that there is any need for change in the basic principles now operative in the present privately controlled financial system.

Mr. F. G. HOBLITZELL (Eglinton):

I am going to vote for the amendment to the motion, which implies endorsation of the plebiscite resolution, because I believe in the principle of universal compulsory selective service. If the amendment is defeated so that we cannot have immediate universal compulsory selective service, then I feel that the only course open to me is to vote for the main motion endorsing the plebiscite proposal to free the government from any election pledge given against conscription and thus allow it to bring in compulsory selective service if it will do so.

In pursuance of this reasoning I shall use what influence I have to induce the electors to vote "yes" on the plebiscite. If the plebiscite is carried, I shall then urge the government to introduce universal compulsory selective service immediately.

I would prefer the immediate release of [DOT]the government from its anti-conscription

commitments by a vote of this house, but since that does not appear to be feasible, I

shall support the plebiscite on the principle

that half a loaf is better than no bread.

Mr. PERLEY:

I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. PURDY:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

I was paired with the-hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. MacKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted for the

amendment.

Mr. POULIOT:

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. SPEAKER:

There is no seconder.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that, with the consent of' the house, I would propose that we would not sit to-night if we conclude the debate at the present time. I would move the formal motions for the committees of ways and means and supply.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house-to adopt the motion? I declare the motion, carried.