Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. A few minutes ago I received a telegram which reads:

Grindstone, Magdalen Islands, June 23, 1942.

J. S. Roy, M.P.,

Ottawa, Ontario.

Carload seventy drums marked gasoline consigned to myself left in Piotou Monday on instructions government inspector. That is what is being done to relieve shortage situation. This oarload must be loaded Thursday as there is no other means transportation. Please get matter cleared in time and wire.

Oscar Delaney

Will the minister take care of this situation if possible?

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):

I drew the attention of the officers of the Department of Transport to the needs of the Magdalen Islands, and I suppose that this is an effort to relieve the situation. However, I shall see that the situation is relieved as adequately as possible.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, I may say for the edification of the house that I hope not to take too long in my discussion of the bill which is before us this afternoon. There has been a long debate; most of the points have already been brought out, and it seems to me that the discussion ought not to be prolonged if that can be avoided. Having said that I may disappoint myself, and you, Mr. Speaker, as well; but I hope for the best.

The bill is the result of the plebiscite which was held on April 27. There has been some talk and discussion as to the meaning of that vote. I myself have no doubt about

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ralston

what the vote meant. I do not say that it was a mandate for conscription for overseas service. I do not say that it was a direction to the government to put into effect compulsory service for overseas. But what I do believe, and what I think the vast majority of the people of this country believe, is that the voters considered and expressed themselves to this effect to the government: Raise the men in any way you think necessary to help win the war. And underneath that declaration was a definite indication of a green light to the government to go full speed ahead.

I want to express my profound appreciation of the unmistakable response which three millions of the citizens of the dominion gave in authorizing the government to do everything it considered expedient to prosecute the war effectively. I recognize that it was not a vote of confidence in any government, and it was not taken as such, but I do believe that it can be regarded throughout the world as a resounding declaration by the people of Canada that they are heart and soul in the war. The government is immediately following that up by introducing this bill to ask parliament to give to the government the legal freedom of action which the moral freedom of action given by the plebiscite would indicate.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this debate has helped us all to get a clear view of the troublesome and inflammable question of conscription. For a long while conscription was something that was talked about almost in whispers. There is nothing sinister about conscription. It is only a method of raising men for service in the armed forces, or in any other activity, for that matter. We have conscription in Canada now. We have had it for over a year or more; there are between 30,000 and 35,000 men training or serving in Canada at this minute who were conscripted, if you want to use that term. There are about 50,000 men, including that 30,000 or 35,000, in the army, navy and air force who came in through the call-up. Nobody suggests that it is a bad method or an inefficient method for service in Canada. The only question is whether we should have power to widen the area of service in order that these men could be sent overseas if necessary. I think the real question is not whether conscription is an efficient method but whether there are considerations which override its efficiency.

Speaking of men for overseas service, I stated in February that I preferred the voluntary system if it worked, and I gave my reasons: first, because it provided volunteers for a voluntary army; and second, because of the division in this country which conscription would produce. These, I think, were substantial reasons. I would always prefer to see our Canadian army overseas purely a volunteer army. But if to maintain and reinforce and strengthen it, it should become necessary to require men to serve overseas, then obviously so far as I am concerned there can be no alternative, because we cannot let the army down, and, what is even more important, we cannot let Canada down.

. On the other point, regarding disunity, that-and we might as well face it-is the toughest problem in government to-day. We do not want disunity. But the price of unity must not be too great. We know that there is a deep-rooted antipathy to compulsory overseas service in certain sections of this dominion, and it is quite probable that that antipathy springs from a failure to realize that it is Canada's battle overseas just as much as it is in Canada. No one has explained that situation and that feeling in clearer and more informing terms than my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who made that excellent speech a short time ago. I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the Minister of Justice; our former colleague the member for Richelieu-Vereheres (Mr. Cardin) and many other members from Quebec, have tried to bring this fact home- that it is Canada's war overseas as well as in Canada. I am sure too, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, that those in my department have spared no effort to bring home to our fellow citizens in the province of Quebec the importance of our overseas effort. While there will be those who doubt it, I have myself been fairly earnest and reasonably industrious in recognizing and trying to remedy the handicaps and difficulties that exist.

When the recruiting campaign was on a year ago, I took strong grounds when some members on the opposite side of the house insisted on raising this question of conscription. I urged that it should not be raised before the voluntary system was given a real trial and before the need for conscription was established. As a matter of fact, I believe I was the only member on this side of the house who did make that appeal, and I made it because I remembered what took place in 1917. I want to afford every reasonable opportunity and every possible help to those who have an aversion to compulsory service overseas, or to overseas service in general, to enable them to realize that overseas is Canada's front line. I hope most fervently that this realization will come very fast in the midst of the ominous events of these days. We are having it driven into us every day that this is a fight to a finish, and that we have to think of even more than our unity. We are facing

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ralston

the possibility of fighting for our very existence. If considerations of national unity should come into conflict with measures for our national security and existence, then surely it is the security of the nation which must count-and by that I mean the security of all the nation, both the majority and the minority. It may be that if that test comes we shall find our national unity in the mutual support which we shall have to give each other and which will be imperative by reason of the instinct of self-preservation itself.

So that this bill, Mr. Speaker, gives the government the power to require men to serve in any military, naval or air force of this country outside of this dominion whenever in the opinion of the government, to use the words of section 2, it "may be deemed necessary or expedient for the defence of Canada or the efficient prosecution of the war."

Now, why is that power required? In the speech from the throne, which has already been quoted, there was no mistaking the attitude of the government at that time. In the words of His Excellency the Governor General, which had first been prepared by the government:

The government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in tile world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments, possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.

That, Mr. Speaker, was after Pearl Harbour, after December 7, after the flames which broke out in Europe had spread to Africa and encircled the globe. It was about the time of Singapore and Manila. Since that time the Japanese have come back again to Midway, badly crippled; they limped back home; but since that time the Japanese have set foot on the far end of the bridge which connects Asia with north America, and the day before yesterday we had reports of the Japanese shelling Vancouver island.

Canada has three fronts. But I consider, notwithstanding all that has taken place on the Pacific, that for us in the long run the English channel is probably the most vital point in the strategy of the war. Over there the forces of Britain, the forces of Canada, and, not far away, the forces of the United States stand ready to beat off an attempted invasion. They stand ready also to attack in an offensive which must come and which must succeed if the cause of the united nations is not to perish. Over there Canada has naval units, army units, air force units: the naval units taking part in the Atlantic convoys and in the patrols; the air force fighting

not only in Britain, not only in Europe, but in the middle east and the far east as well; the army standing guard, as it has for two and a half years, doing grim vigil, sometimes in the line and then out again for training, doing boring work, waiting for the time when that training can be put into effect. Canada at the present time has in Britain three infantry divisions, an armoured division, an army tank brigade, thousands and thousands of corps, army and divisional troops; and this year we expect to send over another armoured division and another army tank brigade. Those are the commitments we have on that front. That is what we are doing with regard to the English channel.

I will not trouble to-day, because it is probably not important in connection with this discussion, to detail the extent of our forces in this country. I will only say that we have the sixth, seventh and eighth divisions mobilizing or mobilized; we have the fourth division for the time being, until it goes overseas; we have coast defence artillery and infantry, searchlights and signals and all the services that go with them; we have ninety training centres across Canada, and we have internal units guarding vulnerable points and for the purposes of internal security. In Canada the air force is patrolling this country and guarding both our coasts, as it is doing in England, and the navy is working day and night in its ceaseless patrol, not only of our coasts but in connection with the convoys which leave our shores.

That, very quickly, is a review of the mansized job which the armed forces of Canada are doing at the present time. No Canadian need apologize for the extent of the participation of the armed forces of Canada in this war. At the same time-I have said this again and again, and I repeat it, that whatever we have been doing should simply inspire us to search our hearts to find out if we cannot do more. We are now working on the 1942-43 programme, which calls for

90,000 to 100,000 men during the fiscal year. During the first two and a half months of this fiscal year we have enlisted just under 30,000 men; that is, at the rate of 12,000 a month. That number has to be cut down to some extent because a portion of these men are enlisted in units which are designated for home defence. Nevertheless they are of course available for reinforcements overseas if need be. Leaving them out entirely, we find that about 8,000 men a month have been enlisted, so that in the result voluntary enlistments have been coming in in sufficient numbers to provide what we were advised was necessary to take care of the overseas programme announced in January.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ralston

That, Mr. Speaker, is just the beginning, because new demands are coming in. The Prime Minister mentioned in January that we expected to mobilize in Canada probably another division, at the time of th'e dispatch of the fourth division overseas. As a matter of fact we are mobilizing the seventh and eighth divisions as well as the sixth. We have mobilized a very substantial number of additional anti-aircraft units. Since I spoke in January we have called up no less than

45.000 men. That includes the requisition for the month of July, which has already been sent to my colleague the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson). We have enlisted in the army since that time another

45.000 men, and we have expanded our training facilities so that we are now training men not only in these ninety training establishments across Canada, but in units as well.

Under the intensified activities we have in the army, under what might be referred to as the forced draught under which we are proceeding, we feel, and the government feels, that neither the government nor anybody else knows nor can know what is ahead'-how many men are needed, how many may be required, what casualties will be suffered, what new commitments may have to be taken on, how the system will work as the drain increases on man-power and on administration. I have the responsibility of the raising and the organization of the army, and I am asking this house to face up to these possibilities and to other possibilities-I have not mentioned them all -by voting for this amendment.

In a word, Mr. Speaker, this amendment, as I see it, will empower the government to make and to keep the Canadian army the best and the strongest army we can provide. I agree, and we all agree, that in measuring the size of that army we must take account of the vital needs for men in other war activities. I shall have a word to say about that before I sit down.

But in connection with this amendment and with the authority which will be conferred if this amendment is passed, I say to you and to this house that I shall take at its face value this freedom of action which is being given. I am not going to advocate the use of this authority to compel men to serve overseas simply for the sake of exercising power; far from it. I recognize at the same time what a heavy responsibility that authority creates. I do not want to see this country divided. If I may say so, I think I have worked as hard as a man can to preserve the good understanding and unity of our homeland. Though a lot of people may not believe it, that has been one of the dominant aims in the administration of

my department. It has permeated all our plans and efforts, as our officers will testify.

I say seriously and sincerely that I would make any personal sacrifice to keep this country together.

At the same time, Canada has a war on its hands. The fight, as I said a minute or two ago, is a fight for our existence, and I at my post cannot escape the definite responsibilities which I have. I say now, and you will expect me to say it, that so far as I am concerned compulsory service for overseas will have to be applied without fear or favour whenever its use will aid in the achievement of a maximum war effort, and that does not necessarily mean just to maintain what we are doing; it means, if we can do more, to do it. I do not believe that even those who oppose compulsory service could expect me to say otherwise.

Let me mention something else in that connection. While, as I have said, we have been engaged in these intensive efforts we have been training everybody who has come in, whether the man enlisted voluntarily or was called up for service. All of them have been getting the same training, and they will all be qualified to serve anywhere. That applies to men already called up; it applies to men who will hereafter be called, and if section 3 is repealed, then, whenever it is necessary, the government can immediately act to have these men serve wherever they are needed to fight Canada's battle. No time would be lost, because the men will have been in training. All the government would have to do would be to widen the horizon of service, and that would make every man in Canada, whether he enlisted voluntarily or was called up, available to serve wherever the need might require.

Now there are two or three points which I think I should mention, in view of the fact that they have come up in the debate. First, my hon. friend and former colleague the member for Riehelieu-Vercheres took what I thought was a rather distorted meaning from the provisions of section 5 of the National Resources Mobilization Act. His suggestion, in a word, was that the government might act under this statute and, as he said, put the order in council in the drawer and a man would be on his way overseas before anyone would know anything about it. I wish to say to my hon. friend that orders in council of that kind will not be put in the drawer. Orders in council of that kind will be laid on the table at the earliest possible moment, and if parliament is not sitting they will be, as the statute directs, immediately published in the Canada Gazette and mailed to all members of the House of Commons.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ralston

There is only one exception in that section- it is the exception to which he was referring- and that is that publication may be deferred when it is considered to be in the "national interest". Knowing my hon. friend as I do, I do not think that he or any of those around him would for a single instant desire to be a party to jeopardizing the national interest. He knows perfectly well why that reservation was made. Section 2, which gives the government power over persons and property in the dominion in the widest possible way, has compulsory service for overseas only as one of its many objects. There are many cases I could imagine-cases of alien enemies, civilian cases, cases of highly secret devices and highly secret property-which might come under the act, in respect of which it would be extremely desirable in the national interest that publication of particulars should be deferred. That does not apply with regard to the sending of men overseas for service. As my hon. friend knows, we publish particulars of the men and of their liability for service. We do so every day, and I want to say to him and to anyone else who asks about the regulations with regard to conscription, that regulations have already been laid on the table of the house by my colleague the Minister of National War Services, and they have been in force. They are subject to change from time to time, and I have no doubt they will be changed from time to time. These regulations are already drawn in connection with the system of conscription for service in Canada which is in force in this country. My hon. friend can assure himself, therefore, that there is no danger of anybody's son being sent overseas without his knowing fully that he is liable to such service, and knowing in plenty of time before he goes.

Another point that came up which my hon. friend touched upon, although he did not make the point quite in this way, was this. He suggested that these regulations should be referred to parliament. He said that the matter of actual action in connection with conscription should come back to parliament. I do feel that those who make that suggestion have a wrong appreciation of the situation and of what has taken place. Let me remind the house what happened. A plebiscite was held, and the government asked the people of the country to give it the responsibility of deciding the question as to conscription. It was expressly said by everybody that conscription was not the issue which the public were to decide. The people of Canada voted on the question. I have the figures here: 179 constituencies voted "yes" and 65 constituencies

voted "no," which is equivalent to pretty substantial representation in this House of Commons. That responsibility was given to the government by the people. What happened? The government now comes before parliament and says, "You have given us power over persons and property in this dominion in respect of everything, but you have missed one thing. You have put a limitation in the fact that we cannot send men to serve overseas in the armed forces of Canada. We are asking you to repeal that section."

What is left? What is left is that the government has full responsibility and full power when that section is repealed. I say to you therefore that, the government first having had the plebiscite, asking for a release from its pledge, with regard to compulsory overseas service, and having been granted that release, and, second, having come to parliament to have that release confirmed by the repeal of the very section which mentions compulsory overseas service, obviously when the section is repealed nothing is left for parliament, and the proper course is that the government should not shrink from the responsibility for which it has asked, but should act on that responsibility and act as it deems best in the light of the power given by that section. My hon. friend and those who advocate the reverse are suggesting that the government should ask for a repeal of the section which ties their hands and then the next minute decide to go back to parliament before using the power conferred. I say that that would be the same as the government at one moment having its hands untied and then the next moment having them tied again. In other words, it would be exactly the same as if we were to insert a proviso at the foot of the bill to this effect: "Section 3 is hereby repealed, provided however that none of the powers of section 2 shall be exercised until parliament is consulted once more."

It seems to me that the people of Canada would not understand anything of that sort. It would be regarded as evasion; it would be regarded as a shrinking from responsibility. All we are doing in this debate, having spent weeks at it as it is, would then be merely an idle gesture, because we would then have to come back once more to debate the whole question before exercising the power which we had expressly asked parliament to confer upon us, and which had been so conferred. Without hesitation, therefore, I say that I shall not shrink from the responsibility which has been conferred upon me as a member of the government, but shall act under the statute as amended.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ralston

I wanted to mention two other matters which have to do particularly with the army and with man-power. I was afraid that this house had the impression, from some of the speeches which were made, that somehow or other the army was cutting into the manpower of the country at the expense of the production of munitions and of food, and was therefore unduly hampering our war effort and disrupting our man-power. That certainly was the impression left by one or two speeches that were made.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Some of

the minister's colleagues left that impression.

Mr. RALSTON:

Not only my colleagues;

others as well. I think I am right in saying that the army-I am within hearing of my colleagues the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), and they can correct me if I am wrong-is the only service which makes provision for giving leave to men who are indispensable or who are key men in industry or agriculture. The army from almost the very beginning, certainly from the time I have had anything to do with it, has had a rule- it is part of the general orders-that a man who can be shown to be a key man in connection with munitions, even though he has enlisted, even though he volunteered, may be given leave to go back to munitions work if he so applies. That was followed by the national war services regulations, which I have before me, and which by section 14 expressly provide, not that the army is to take men at the expense of munitions or at the expense of agriculture, but that boards shall be set up under the national war services department to decide, with regard to any man who is called up for service in the army, whether it is in the "national interest" to grant an advancement or postponement of that man's training.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

But always on his application.

Mr. RALSTON:

Always on his application.

Or his employer's.

Mr. RALSTON:

The point is that on that board sits nobody from the army and properly on that board sits no one representing the man. It is a judicial body established by the Department of National War Services. Whoever says that the army cuts into the supply of man-power for munitions or for agriculture has not read the regulations, because the regulations expressly provide, not that the army comes first but that if it is shown that a man is indispensable in agriculture or industry, the army comes last. If to-morrow I requisition my hon. friend the Minister of National War Services for 5,000 men, I do not get them automatically just because the army asks for them. They are called up; any man who claims he is essential in war industry has a right to make his application to the board, and all the army gets are those who are not excused by the board. In other words, priority is given to agriculture and industry.

I think that ought to be made clear because there has been too much of the suggestion that somehow we have built up a big army at the expense of munitions or at the expense of industry.

Another suggestion made was that we are closer to exhaustion in mobilization of manpower than anyone realizes. I admit that we are close to the calling up of the thirty-year class of single men. But the thirty-year class of single men is not the only class; there are still those from thirty to forty-five, still those from nineteen to twenty-one, and still the married class of all ages from nineteen to forty-five. I submit it is needlessly timorous to suggest that simply because we are approaching the exhaustion of the thirty-year class, there must be some question, some very serious consideration, as to where men for the army are to be raised.

Another situation mentioned was that

1,350,000 men are in agriculture at the present time, 300,000 in mining, 900,000 in munitions and industry, and 2,000,000 in civilian occupations and that the man-power situation was tight or difficult. We are not approaching the full mobilization of man-power for war purposes simply because everyone happens to be employed; the question is, what are they employed at, and can they be got out of those particular employments and either put in the armed services or made available for munitions or agriculture or some other activity which is more necessary for the war.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

On the

principle of selection.

Mr. RALSTON:

Of course; that is exactly what the Department of Labour is doing at the present time. That is why I have said, and I repeat here, that Mr. Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, and my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), have tough jobs. They have. But I do not think there are any men in Canada who have tougher jobs than my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), and Mr. Little, the director of national labour services, in trying to take human beings and put them where they will be most useful in carrying on the war.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ralston

Those are the things that we have to work at and work hard. Take the 1,350,000 in agriculture. What I am about to say may not be very popular, but of those 1,350,000 men there are many who come within what is called the subsistence class, that is, the class who are perhaps not doing much more than simply raising enough for themselves and their families. The question is whether those men ought to be left in that occupation, or whether some farmer with capital and greater productive capacity and a sufficient establishment for the purpose would not better be raising the food for that man and let him go into construction work or munitions or some line of work where he could be used to the best possible purpose.

Take munitions, in which 900,000 are employed. Of that 900,000, one-sixth are women. That makes quite a sizable army-150,000 men released by those 150,000 women. In civilian occupations there are 2,000,000. Mr. Little has to work and work hard to see that many of those men in civilian occupations are made available for the armed services and for war occupations. How does he do it? Production is cut down. In order to relieve these men you and I have to tighten our belts and do without some of the ordinary civilian commodities which we can do without. You and I have to help him to find other men for civilian occupations, men who are above or below military age, or men who are physically unfit for military service. You and I have to see to it that there is a great movement, into the factories and industry and civilian occupations generally, of women to take the place of men, as there has been in the old country.

These things are just beginning. It seems to me, therefore, that at this stage the ultimate gross supply of man-power does not enter very much into the question whether we can keep up an army.

Let me say that I am not advocating the cause of the army simply because it is the army. I am advocating the army's cause because it is Canada's army, and because it has a job to do, and because without the army we cannot win this war, no matter how much we might hope to the contrary.

Now, I have mentioned these points very briefly. I did want to deal with one other matter-

Go ahead.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

With unanimous consent.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is the consent unanimous? Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.

Mr. RALSTON:

This is perhaps a small matter, but I did want to mention it. I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres but he said something which cut me rather, because I felt it was something regarding which he was perhaps not informed but regarding which he might have taken the opportunity to get information. He said that trainees were scattered all over Canada among regiments composed of volunteers. He said that we have English-speaking soldiers in Montreal and that French-speaking soldiers are sent outside the province of Quebec to be trained. Let me point out that in the province of Quebec there are basic training centres for all the men to be trained, except in some special situation.

There are advanced training centres there as well; two infantry advanced training centres and as a matter of fact, in addition, Quebec has a machine gun training centre and a forestry training centre, and no other province has either. But we do not have advanced training centres for special arms of the service in every province, and it is therefore necessary in connection with training that the boys go from Quebec to other provinces, to Petawawa for artillery training, for example, and to Barryfield for signals, just as it is necessary for boys from other provinces to go to Quebec to take machine gun training or forestry training and in some cases infantry training as well. There is no sinister purpose whatever in the sending of young men from Quebec to some other province; it is done simply because the facilities are located where they are. Neither is there any sinister purpose in sending boys from Ontario or Manitoba or some other province to the machine gun training centre at Three Rivers.

With regard to service, I am sure my hon. friend knows perfectly well that we are not keeping active units in Montreal for the purpose of defending Montreal, and that the French Canadian boys in active French Canadian units go to the coasts or other vulnerable points, wherever they may be, in exactly the same way and for the same purpose as their English speaking compatriots. I am sure the hon. member would not have them kept in Montreal when he knows there is a job to be done on the Pacific or the Atlantic coast. I feel that it is due to these boys that I should say this and that it is due to the administration of the department and due to my hon. friend himself. I would add that every possible consideration is extended in connection with training and service to give these boys the opportunities for service and the posts for

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mutch

which they are fitted. At the same time I want to say that no exception is made; men are posted where they can best serve and where they are needed at the time, regardless of race, creed or class.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with just a word with regard to something I mentioned at the beginning, but which I feel cannot be impressed upon us too much; I refer to this thing called overseas service. That word "overseas" gives the idea of something far away, something in the nature of a crusade to help other people. I wonder if we cannot get it into our heads that "overseas" just means Canada's front line. It is Canada's war which is being fought overseas and by far the most important bulwark which has stood between us and attack on our own shores, long before this, has been that fortress in the British isles, which is not just a British fortress but a Canadian fortress as well, which is manned not only by Britishers but also by the Canadian navy and army and air force. They talk about educational campaigns. I submit that the education we need in Canada is a lesson in geography, to show how easy it would be for Hitler to hop across here if he were not pinned down by the constant dread of the British isles. If he could get that thorn out of his side we in Canada would then learn something about the real terrors of war. The fact we have to get into our heads, and those of our fellow citizens, is that this is Canada's war wherever it is being fought. We thought Hong Kong and Singapore and Java were a long way off. Those successes paved the way for the Japanese landing in the Aleutian islands, and those same successes made possible the shelling of Cape Estevan on Vancouver island the night before last. We have to protect our own coasts of course; and we are doing everything we possibly can in that direction. But what we want to do is help defeat the enemy before he gets here, or the last battle of this world conflict-and this is no idle dream-will be fought on Canadian and American soil, in Canadian and American towns, villages and countrysides. I emphasize what I believe to be sound doctrine, namely, that we cannot defend our country and save our homes and families and everything that is dear to us simply by waiting here for the enemy to attack us. Every country that has tried those tactics has been attacked sooner or later.

While we are strengthening our forces and our equipment in our own country, we must, as part of our defences, take our full share in the combat abroad. We must be prepared to meet Canada's enemies where Canada's 44561-225

war is being fought. That is part of Canada's programme; that is what we are trying to do. We have overseas an army of strength and spirit and courage; we have overseas an army to be proud of, and this measure gives the government power to go the limit to see that that army is reinforced and strengthened for the task of defending Canada wherever that task may call them.

Yesterday my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services closed a very able speech with a reference to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his picture of a cathedral, -the component parts of which he visualized as the various races in this dominion. I could show my colleague and hon. members of this house not a mythical cathedral, not an allegorical one, but a cathedral of flesh and blood, composed of the young men of the Dominion of Canada, French and English; and I would not have to take you any further than the officers' training camp at the city of Brock-ville. This month there was a graduating class of 329, of which no less than 127 were French Canadians, and there are in attendance at the school at the present time 1,106 officers of which 305 are French Canadians. I want to say to my colleague and to this house that I should like hon. members to go there some time and see that school. I believe that there they would get a lesson in and a practical demonstration of Canadian unity that would do their hearts good. There, in spite of all our argument here, they would find a true cross-section of Canada; young men of both races, neither submerging its individuality, no thought of assimilation, but everyone contributing his best from the traditions, the heritage, the character and the personality of his own race for the good and in the service of the Dominion of Canada. Those men would inspire you to believe that it is out of this material, fashioned in the hard workshop of war and seasoned by comradeships which I am certain will never dim and never fail, that the edifice of Canada's nationhood will be built, to endure for all time.