Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):

Not so bad.

Mr. CRERAR:

The French people in Canada have certain privileges and certain rights. They acquired those rights by treaty, and so far as I am concerned every right that they have in that respect should be recognized and should never be challenged. I believe that is the sentiment of every hon. member. But those rights would not be preserved very long in this country if Germany triumphed in Europe and Japan in Asia. In my opinion it would be only a matter of time, and a comparatively short time, before we would have to fight not only on the Atlantic coast but on the Pacific coast as well. There is no richer prize in the world to-day for the tyrant countries than Canada, with its lakes and rivers and rich valleys, with its minerals and its forests and its fish and its fertile agricultural lands. Because this danger seems to me to be outstanding, I am willing to go to any length to defeat Germany now-not when she comes to our shores, but now, while she is three thousand miles away. For that reason I have no hesitation in saying that if I had believed, a year ago or six months ago, or at the outbreak of war, that conscription would have added to the effectiveness of Canada's war effort, I would have been for it. I will say further that if the time comes when in my judgment conscription would add to the effectiveness of Canada's war effort, I would be for it. I want to make that clear. I shall have something more to say about that a moment later.

In this great danger which confronts the world and which confronts us it is not merely a misfortune but a tragedy that disunity is showing its ugly head in Canada. Where does this come from? I say very frankly that those who raised the conscription issue in this country will carry a serious responsibility when the story of these times comes to be written, and I say with equal force that those who agree with my friends the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) and the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) will carry an equally heavy responsibility before the searching eye of history. These two opposing forces become more and more inflamed with

i

Mobilization Act-Mr. Crerar

the passage of time-the one, which would conscript men for overseas at once, regardless of the consequences to our national unity; the other, which would not send a man from Canadian shores to carry on this struggle. They typify two forces which are as diametrically opposed as.the poles, and it is a sad reflection that our Canadian effort in the war- and I am proud of it-is in danger of being ground between these two opposing forces. Does that make common sense in our war effort? Does that feed the flames of a pure patriotism for Canada? I cannot see it.

May I remind the house of the value of unity in a struggle of this kind. The men you put into uniform in the army and the air force and the naval services are not the only factors in conducting this struggle. One of the greatest factors is moral and psychological, and I aver that no nation can conduct war effectively if it is riven by disunity. Why did the nazis organize disunity in every country they sought to overcome? In Norway they had their quislings. There was not a countiy in Europe that nazi Germany attacked successfully wherein she had not operated and expended millions to promote and create disunity. Why? Because psychologically it weakened the power of resistance of those countries. To that end Germany spent untold millions. It is a sorry reflection that, with intentions which, let me concede, may be the best in the world, we have in this country those who will do that job for Hitler for nothing. The importance of this should not be lost upon the people of this country.

Mr. LACOMBE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. According to standing order 41 I would ask the Minister of Mines and Resources to withdraw his statement. He has no right to compare me to Hitler; I am as good a Canadian as the minister is.

Mr. CRERAR:

I hope Your Honour will take this interruption into account when checking my time.

It is to maintain unity that the Prime Minister who heads this government has sought by every means in his power to bridge these differences. There may be differences of opinion as to what he has done, but I know, and every one of his colleagues knows, that the thought that has been uppermost in the mind of the Prime Minister has been to keep this country united, because by keeping it united we can best accomplish a maximum war effort. Sometimes, if it could be done, I think it would be an excellent thing if we could take the leaders and the sub-leaders and the sub-sub-

leaders in these two camps and put them together on some comfortable island for the duration of the war. I think it would be a good thing.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Is this a free country any longer?

Mr. BRUCE:

You cannot stand criticism.

Mr. CRERAR:

I think the first I would nominate as a candidate for this mythical island would be the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains.

Mr. LACOMBE:

I rise to a point of order. I ask a decision from the Chair. A moment ago I raised a point of order and I did not get a decision from the Chair. The minister must withdraw his statement. It is contrary to the rules of the house. .

Mr. SPEAKER:

I did not understand that the minister compared the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to Hitler. I think that is an exaggeration.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

What he

did compare him to was a quisling; that was the fair inference from what he said. I hold no brief for the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, but that is undoubtedly the interpretation.

Mr. CRERAR:

My hon. friend is quite

mistaken.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member again

raises a point of order as to something the minister is now saying. He has not completed any analogy so far as I have yet heard.

Mr. CRERAR:

I hope this will not be

charged against me when you come to look at the clock, Mr. Speaker. I say it in the best of good temper.

I think I would nominate my hon. friend for a place on this comfortable island. He has announced that he is the leader of a party, and I think probably his deskmate, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), might be described as the tail of the party. I see the head and the tail, but I do not see any body in between; it is a sort of disembodied party. Then I think I would perhaps nominate my friend the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) as the medical director general of this island; I am sure he would make a good job of it. I hesitate to say it, because I would not want to send my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to this island, but if I were looking for a monitor who could caution and advise, and at times chastise, I think I would select the leader of the opposition for that job.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Crerar

Mr. HANSON' (York-Sunbury): Thank

heaven the minister has not the power to do anything. I do not know anybody in the government of this country more impotent than the hon. gentleman who is now speaking.

Mr. CRERAR:

I am willing to be judged by the country. My hon. friend should not get so touchy at a little banter, because he frequently hands out some himself.

I come now to another criticism that has been directed against the government in this debate, particularly by our friends opposite- the criticism that the government has done too little, that it does it too late, and that it lacks leadership.

Mr. BRUCE:

So it does.

Mr. CRERAR:

And that the country lacks leadership.

Mr. BRUCE:

You are a poor example of

a leader.

Mr. CRERAR. That is a fine criticism to come from my hon. friend.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Does not

the minister think he called for it.

Mr. BRUCE:

The minister is inviting such remarks.

Mr. CRERAR:

Let us look at the record

and see where is the weakness and vacillation and procrastination referred to so often by hon. members directly opposite and by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) the other day. Let us see what this "time-serving" government has done.