Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Mercier):

Mr. Speaker, I have but a few words to say. I do not think it is necessary to make long speeches to give the reasons why some of us are against conscription and others are in favour of it, while a third group is accepting it as an expedient to avoid more trouble in this country, or so they say. Where is the guiding light to which reference was made last evening? I do not know. As far as I am concerned I am and all my life have been opposed to conscription and1 to any form of coercion. I expressed

my views in 1942, when we discussed bill No. SO. and I am of the same opinion to-day. All the reasons that have been given since last Thursday, for the adoption of order in council P.C. 8891 dispatching to the European theatre of war 16,000 draftees, have not convinced me of the necessity for that decision. On the contrary, during this debate it has been shown that there has been lack of good will and lack of competence somewhere in using the voluntary system as it should have been used. No reasonable man in Canada will deny that the more than 750,000 volunteers from a small country like ours could have been organized and sent to different lands in such a way that reinforcements would have been available from within the ranks of that comparatively large and gallant army of volunteers. I am not a military expert, as many other hon. members have admitted they are not, but in playing any game you must bear in mind that you should not play it unless you are prepared to replace some, if not all, of your men as the game goes on; and this should be decided before the game is started.

I realize that this is not the time for recriminations. We must face realities and accomplished facts. We have not been called here to say whether we are in favour of or against conscription. We have been called to decide whether the present administration is to continue in office until the end of the war, with a policy of conscription, whether full or limited; or whether we are to hand over the administration of this country to another group of men who, according to their own affirmation, will continue this policy of conscription to a greater degree in order to attain total conscription. Is this not the situation, Mr. Speaker, since you ruled out of order the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) ? In this house there is an increasing number of hon. members who are openly against conscription, but I am inclined to believe that in their hearts many others still favour the voluntary system. May I draw to the attention of those who, like myself, are ready to do their utmost to prevent conscription for overseas service, by any means at hand, that they are not working to that end by simply voting against the motion of confidence presented by the right hon. Prime Minister, or by voting against the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in order to be fair to all, and to give every hon. member an opportunity to express his views fully, I urge you to accept the following amendment to the amendment moved

War Effort-Government Policy

by the leader of the opposition, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Fauteux):

That all the words of the amendment after the word "reinforcements" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"by using to the best advantage the general service personnel in Canada and the volunteers overseas without resorting to conscription for service overseas."

Mr. GRAYDON:

In view of the fact that the mover of this amendment to a government motion is parliamentary assistant to one of the ministers of the crown, I should like to ask my hon. friend if his resignation as parliamentary assistant has already been given to the government?

Mr. JEAN:

I have already tendered to the right hon. Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice my resignation as parliamentary assistant; but that does not mean I am not going to do my duty just the same.

Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (Lambton West): Mr. Speaker, in 1942 I opposed the taking of the plebiscite, because I felt that the issue to be faced was not a question of conscription or voluntary service. The issue of conscription had been decided by the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940. There remained1 only, therefore, the question of the restrictions and limitations contained in that bill. I was of opinion that the responsibility for deciding that particular question rested solely upon the shoulders of the elected representatives of the people in parliament, rather than upon the people to be decided by way of a plebiscite. The government having been released by the people from any moral obligation they felt was binding, it was my opinion, as expressed in the debate on bill No. 80, that full effect should be given to the manifest desire of the majority of the people for the immediate removal of that restriction, the taking away of any limitation with respect to the services of our armed forces, and the passing of the necessary order in council forthwith.

In March 1943, with the casualties of Dieppe as an object lesson of what would lie ahead for our fighting men, I closed my speech in this house by asking for immediate action, in these words:

Mr. Speaker, the crucial months are at hand. Can we say that we are ready? Are we to continue to sidestep this issue until we are in an emergency? Time has been kind to us. It has been on our side. But soon the starter's gun will be raised. The men are on their marks. Will we be there to take the baton at the end of the first lap? At the end of the second lap? Will our reserves be marshalled to lead the way over the finish line? That, sir, is a question which must be faced, not in the heat of battle, but now before it is too late.

I would be less than human did I not call attention to my appeal on that occasion, not to wait for an emergency, not to delay until the heat of battle, but to act at once.

On July 10, 1944, speaking on this same issue, and with our casualties in Normandy mounting daily, I again urged the government to remove the territorial jurisdiction restrictions, and to compel the N.R.M.A. men, now fully trained, to proceed overseas at once. No action was taken.

Before discussing the matter as I view it on this first day of December, 1944, I feel it is only fair to the government that I recall to the minds of hon. members the attitude of other parties in the house. The government is being strongly condemned by the official opposition and the C.C.F. for the manner in which it has handled the subject of service in the armed forces during these years of war. Let us see how those opposition groups have acted.

The official opposition, in 1944, after forty-seven days of debate on the war appropriation measure, without bringing in any direct motion such as stands in their name to-day, did bring in, at the end of an amendment to the motion to go into ways and means, commonly known as the budget debate, a clause which meant, according to the mover, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe (Mr. Rowe), that N.R.M.A. draftees were to be demobilized and turned back to the farms, factories and forests until needed.

In case hon. members opposite may say, no, I shall place upon the record that statement. In this way we shall let the house and the country decide what was the policy of the official opposition only five months ago. This is the paragraph as it appears at page 4341 of Hansard:

For the honour of Canada I urge upon the government that they now remove the political halo that surrounds this most ridiculous camouflage and to turn these able-bodied men back to the farms, the factories and the forests where they can produce for victory until they are marshalled for the more vital service for which they were conscripted.

Can this house imagine the position in which the country would find itself to-day if that policy had been followed? Instead of finding men fully trained, mobilized and ready to proceed overseas in this emergency, we would have found them scattered to the four corners of Canada.

And now, sir, what about the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation? The C.C.F. would not have had any reinforcement problem; they would not have had a veteran problem; for this is the party that would have allowed Britain to bleed and die before sending any expeditionary force to her aid.

War Effort-Government Policy

This is the party which was led by the present leader, and went through the country in 1942 urging the people to vote for the plebiscite but, at the same time, telling its supporters not to worry, because they would vote against the government bill removing the restrictions when it was brought before the house. And they did, every last man of the party. This is the party which, at a session in Montreal as late as June 1944, with the fate of the invasion still hanging in the balance, was passing a resolution-"to send reinforcements overseas?" No, Mr. Speaker, a resolution condemning the British Labour party for continuing to collaborate with the Churchill government. This was the party, which, after stating that the issue was reinforcements, and reinforcements only, and after imputing political motives to other parties, on November 27, Monday of this week, moved a subamendment covering the full range, military and economic, in an endeavour to place the whole platform of the C.C.F. before the public, and take advantage of the publicity arising out of this session.

I now come to the immediate question before the house. Had the government, having recognized the need and the urgency, come out four-square on a policy of unrestricted compulsory service, I would not be speaking as I shall in this house to-day. However, when I find the Minister of National Defence driven to the point where, against his will, he resorts to a limited order in council saying that, yes, he will continue the voluntary system even to this extent-and I quote his words-

I have no intention of using compulsion, except to meet a deficiency and having regard to the purpose we have of maintaining the strength of our armies overseas. . . .

-and when I find that the country is still to be saddled with two armies, one voluntary for service anywhere, and another conscripted, which may or may not be used, I must in justice to my constituents in Lambton West, who sent me here to do my duty as I see it and with, I believe their full support, protest against this half-way measure. There is no half-way house to victory. There must not be any half-way house in our effort, now that this step has been taken.

It is true, as the Prime Minister has said, that conscription is not the issue in this debate; but this is true only in the broad sense of the word. Conscription will always be an issue, as long as the Minister of National Defence clings tenaciously to the voluntary system. Surely he must realize that we have exhausted the alphabet in our endeavours to secure volunteers from the

N.R.M.A. men. By that I mean from "A"- appeals to their manhood-to "Z"-zombie characterization, and without success. "If you want us, make the order cover any or all," is their cry. By what magic does the minister feel he can succeed where others have failed? If the policy of conscription is settled, then in my opinion it becomes only a question of fair and equal application, to prove that it is the most democratic system yet evolved.

Mr. Churchill, speaking on the application of conscription, used these words:

There is nothing undemocratic about this measure; it is the most democratic thing we have ever done. Provided that no exceptions are allowed, it will wear aw-ay differences between class and class.

I might add that here in Canada, to use the same words, provided that no exceptions are allowed, it will not only wear away differences between class and class, but it will wear away differences between race and race.

Mr. Churchill continued:

And it may also be the beginning of a far more broadly and evenly based society than we have ever known . . . almost everywhere we see hesitating, cautious governments, and resolute peoples. Here at home, the spirit of the people is far ahead of the government, and perhaps even of parliament, also. . . . This is a time when prejudices must be abandoned on either side, and a true comradeship established between all parties and clases throughout our loyal, anxious land.

Here in Canada we see the government hesitant on this particular subject matter, and the people resolute. Here in Canada we have an opportunity of abandoning prejudices and moving forward with a common purpose.

It has been said in the house on many occasions, and it was repeated by the Prime Minister in his recent radio address, that conscripted men will not be well received by the volunteers overseas. Speaking as one who served for three years in the last war as a private soldier, I believe that to be a fallacy handed down to us by the general staff, and that is my reason for submitting this opinion. When a soldier dons the uniform of a private he gives himself over to the army. He discovers a world in which his private personality and his private will no longer count; he becomes a number rather than a name. He becomes part of a vast machine. He had little time in the last war and he has less in this one to think for himself, let alone argue the merits of the voluntary or the conscriptive system. Provided that he has sufficient training, in a few days the draftee becomes absorbed in the machine; perhaps he becomes a casualty and some one else steps in and fills his place. And so the ever-grinding wheels of war move on.

TFar Effort-Government Policy

Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member (Mr. Gray) who has just taken his seat. I admire his stand on the matter of reinforcements, but I do not think I shall be able to follow him completely. He referred to the amendment which was moved to the budget by this party in 1944 to the effect that N.R.M.A. men should be demobilized. True enough, there is a paragraph in that amendment which points out that the government has failed to make effective the full mobilization of our financial, industrial and material resources as well as our man-power, but is maintaining a so-called home defence army at a cost to the taxpayer in excess of 1150 million per annum, and it was suggested that they could provide greater national service to this country.

I should like to refer to the amendment which was moved by this group this year to the speech from the throne. It reads:

That the following words be added to the address in reply to the speech from 'the throne:

"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have:

(a) Failed to make adequate provision and .to implement promises already made for the immediate needs and employment of the men and women of the armed forces on demobilization;

(b) Failed to provide adequate measures whereby agriculture can make its maximum war- and peace-time contribution through a stable and effective long-term programme;

(c) Failed to establish such a national code for labour as will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful place in our national partnership; and failed to provide for the correction of the unfairly coercive and restrictive clauses in the 1943 wartime wages control order;

(d) Failed to lessen bureaucratic controls and regimentation and to recognize and restore the supremacy of parliament; and failed to halt the continuing infringement of provincial rights and the centralization of authority.

At all times we have said that there must be reinforcements for our fighting forces. I remember well the amendment which was moved in 1942 to the speech from the throne. That amendment embodied the principle contained in a brief which the Canadian Legion executive had presented a few months previously to the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

War Effort-Government Policy

That brief urged an all-out war effort and total conscription of the manpower of this country. I have never veered from that stand. I shall deal with this some time later in my remarks during the forty minutes ahead. I shall prove that we have been consistent in our stand ever since I have been a member of this house.

This is one of the most important debates in the history of this nation. The issue is the question of reinforcements for our men at the battle fronts. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not know that there was a reinforcement problem until, the Minister of National Defence returned from his trip to the battle front in October, may I say to him that the relatives in this country of the Canadian boys on the battle fronts knew full well that there was a serious problem during August and September of this year. The mothers, wives, sweethearts and other relatives of our fighting boys are the people of Canada who are responsible for this organization against the half-hearted piecemeal policy of the present government. This organization was started right in the homes and among the families of our fighting men.

May I state my position with respect to the secret session that we had this week. I should like to tell the people of this country that the first thing I did at three o'clock on that day was to ask to have a clarification from the Speaker of the House of Commons. Both the Speaker and the Prime Minister made it very clear to me that anything which might be spoken outside that secret session was distinctly a matter that would rest with the conscience of each individual member, that each individual member should decide what might give comfort to the enemy. I have seen service at the front and I think I can judge as to what would give comfort to the enemy. There was much of that discussion which would be of very little interest to the enemy. I shall refer to some of the statements made at a later stage or at some future date, but I wanted to make my position perfectly clear as to what the regulations were with respect to the secret session.

This is a strange situation which the Prime Minister has been creating over the past twenty-seven years. We had "no conscription" in 1939. Then there was the thirty-day training of 1940. We had home service in 1941, and in 1942 we had the plebiscite in which eight provinces voted "yes" overwhelmingly. In 1943 we had conscription if necessary', but not necessarily conscription. We had an order in council making some 16,000 men under the N.R.M.A. available by King-scription-not necessarily conscription but King-scription.

That is in 1944, so that step by step this King-scription for overseas reinforcements has reached the stage we see now. There has been great unfairness in the meantime and great partiality under the call-ups to date. This last order in council of November 23, as explained in this house by the new Minister of National Defence, only aggravates the entire situation. May I refer to page 6556 of Hansard:

Mr. Ross (Souris): There lias been considerable discussion to-day about the 16,000 men who will be called up under the new conscription policy which has been announced. In choosing those men or any proportion of them, will it be done on a per capita basis in the military districts across Canada from which they originally enlisted? . _

Mr. McNaughton: No; they will just be taken from any part of Canada.

I think the people of Canada realize that military districts represent the provinces throughout the dominion. There, may be some slight variations, but generally speaking that is as close as we can get it. This, in my opinion, certainly creates a greater distinction than has existed. As has already been pointed out, it divides the N.R.M.A. army into different sections. We would not have had the trouble we have to-day throughout Canada if this had been a general- -order taking in all N.R.M.A. men. But these chaps are asking -the question, "On what basis am I going to be chosen while somebody else is n-ot?" This order, I repeat, has aggravated the entire situation, which has been so unfair up to the present time. You have only- to compare this step-by-step policy which has been put into force by this government since the declaration of war with the manly draft policy announced in the United States on the day they declared war and forming a part of that declaration, issued- on the same date. The American soldiers over there have a national pride which has never existed among the soldiers of this country. I have discussed this point at different times. The soldiers of the United States are proud-of their draft system, because under that system there is no distinction and they- have not the rancour that exists in this nation of ours.

We are assembled here to deal with the reinforcement problem, conscription having already been introduced and enforced by this government. The correspondence between the Prime Minister and the former Minister of National Defence, now the hon. member for Prince, which correspondence has been tabled, clearly proves the inconsistency of the Prime Minister. If in this country there is a threat of anarchy now, as was stated by the Prime Minister, it comes as a direct result of the false leadership and citizenship of the present Prime Minister and his present King-scription policy.

War Effort-Government Policy

The Prime Minister is not a military man and he.has never visited our men on service in the theatres of war. Probably he is the only head of an allied nation who has not visited the servicemen in theatres of war or at the battle front, and in my opinion that is very important. Nothing has done more to establish the morale of the fighting men than these periodic visits of Churchill to the front. Think again of the President of the United States, under his great physical handicap, doing the same thing. I think that has had a great effect on the morale of the citizens of those countries. I might say also that Sir Robert Borden, during the last war when he was Prime Minister, went and saw the men in the front line. I remember how thrilled I was as a man in the front lines to see the Prime Minister come to the battlefields at that time. It meant a great deal to me in those dark days.

Last autumn it was stated that young Canadians without sufficient conditioning and training were becoming casualties at the front. I have some personal knowledge of that so far as my own neighbourhood is concerned. I think of one family about twenty miles from where I live. Early in August they received that sad cablegram intimating that the youngest of three boys on service had been killed in action. I can remember how that young man felt a few months ago when he first received his draft call. His father being an ex-serviceman himself, these boys naturally volunteered for active service. When they received their draft call they volunteered for active service because they would not think of asking for deferment or postponement; it was not in their blood. I shall never forget the occasion on which I drove to that little village to attend a memorial service one harvest day and the bitter words of anguish expressed to me by the mother concerning all parliamentarians. If you knew exactly the situation that exists there you would fully sympathize with that lady.

That was only one of many such cases in that neighbourhood during August and September, where casualties were being reported. Men had not been enlisted long enough to be properly conditioned and trained and were being reported as casualties time and again not from one unit but from many. At the same time we had, not one unit, but units of N.R. M.A. men coming from a distance, some of them not being able to speak good English, and they were taking in the harvest on some farms where parents were receiving cablegrams informing them that their sons had been killed. At the same time some of these other

men had been under the N.R.M.A. for three or four years. You can imagine the bitterness that has been created throughout southwestern Manitoba in consequence of this situation. These are actual facts. I have case histories of my own in my particular corner of the country, and I can assure the house that the feeling which has been engendered as a result of N.R.M.A. men coming out, many from large cities, who had never seen a farm, and being set to work on farms where every male member of the family of military age had volunteered, is something that does not make for a healthy situation.

I think of another chap from my vicinity, a lad under twenty years of age with just a few months' service. He had been reported as having been wounded three times in August. I cannot tell you how severely he was wounded, but his relatives were notified that he had suffered three times in August, and before the end of that month the sad message came to say that he had been killed in action. You can conceive the feelings of these people throughout that part of the country.

This is a policy with which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has had a good deal to do. As Minister of National War Services he had to do with the registration that was made in this country, but little had been done otherwise. Some of us realize what the state of his mind is to-day as to reinforcements. I would not embarrass him at this time with the statement he made in secret session about reinforcerrfents for overseas, but it is not a healthy situation.

The former minister of national defence, now the hon. member for Prince, went overseas and visited the battle fronts during October to ascertain for himself the actual facts, and I commend him for that manly stand and for his decision to do as he did. He cabled to the Prime Minister from London on October 13 indicating his apprehensions, and he reported personally upon his return on October 18. He said it appeared clearly enough that the volunteer personnel would not be made available to meet the needs and that there was no alternative but to recommend that N.R.M.A. personnel be sent overseas as reinforcements. He felt that this was necessary to fulfil our pledges to our fighting men.

The Prime Minister rejected that recommendation made by practical men from the battle front, the then minister of national defence and his chief of staff, General Stuart. Both of these honourable gentlemen have resigned as a result of that rejection. The Prime Minister then called on General McNaughton, a man who about a year ago

DECEMBER 1, 1944 6739

War Effort-Government Policy

was relieved of the command of the Canadian army, in my opinion for good and sufficient reasons, which may be known to the public after the close of the war. I will not press the matter further now, but I am satisfied that when the story can be told this statement of mine will be proved. He said he could succeed with the volunteer system and he was sworn to office as Minister of National Defence on November 2. This was done, despite the fact that he is reported in the press on October 26, 1944, to have stated that he knew nothing about the reinforcement situation and the reports of untrained casualties, professing that he had been away from the whole situation for a considerable time and that he knew utterly nothing of the situation before the previous week. Two weeks after assuming office the new minister called a meeting in Ottawa for November 14 of the general officers commanding military districts across Canada, and they told him that, in their opinion, these men could not be obtained voluntarily, although they were willing to make another try after their meeting, and as a result one of these officers commanding a military district resigned his position to prove his good faith in the matter. Still, a week later, the minister stated that the voluntary system would be satisfactory. His comrades overseas and in Canada are thus betrayed in their greatest hour of need.

On November 22, the day this house assembled, the Prime Minister gave notice in Votes and Proceedings of a vote of confidence motion in the policies of this government. On Thursday, November 23, he presented an order in council which reversed his avowed policy, and we are asked to vote on the original motion. What are we to think of such a condition as that? How are we conscientiously, as we have been asked by previous speakers to-day, to support the government on its policies in view of that situation?

The Prime Minister made reference in, I thought, rather slighting terms to the stand of the Canadian Legion. Let me say right here that no organization in Canada has done more to assist in an all-out war effort than has the Canadian Legion. I was a bit disappointed to hear the ex-Minister of National Defence state the other evening that they had not given him much assistance. I do not think he had really considered the seriousness of that statement, because it is not in keeping with the facts as I know them.

Mr. RALSTON:

I as speaking about the voluntary recruiting campaign.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

Correct. I am just coming to that. Before I forget it, may I say that either in 1941 or 1942 the then Minister of National Defence wrote every member of the House of Commons urging them to assist in every way they could in the matter of voluntary recruiting. I well remember the time when I was privileged to return home and attend a very large gathering of the Manitoba command of the Canadian Legion which was then being held in the east end of my riding. I appealed for recruits in every part of the province, and I defy any member or members of this government from my province to come forward and state when and how he or they endeavoured to carry out the appeal for recruits on a volunatry basis for this government to the extent that I have done. If they did so, I have not known of it.

As to the reference to the Canadian Legion, it may not be realized that 16,000 of their ex-servicemen have enlisted in this war; they have also some 84.000 sons and daughters in the war, and I do not need to take the time of the house to go into details of the manner in which the organization has assisted voluntary recruitment throughout Canada. There is a great debt of gratitude owing to members of that great organization at this time.

Mr. RALSTON:

Would my hon. friend permit me a moment? What I was referring to was the active recruiting campaigns. I just mentioned in passing at the time that there was some complaint, in connection with the present campaign, that the legion had not participated.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

Correct.

Mr. RALSTON:

I indicated what I thought was a fact, that the legion had not officially entered into recruiting campaigns to any large extent in the past. If I am wrong about that I withdraw it. I can say quite clearly and emphatically that the legion have assisted in many, many branches of our war effort; but in connection with the voluntary campaign I had not remembered that the legion officially had taken a particularly strong or active stand. If I am wrong I certainly withdraw it. I myself am a member of the legion, and am only too happy to make acknowledgment of everything that the legion has done; they have given outstanding service, and it has not just been in the department of recruiting alone, it includes leave, rehabilitation, dependents' allowance and various other things which they have taken up with me, and as to which they have been most active and helpful. At the same time I certainly cannot speak

War Effort-Government Policy

too highly of the fine example set by enlistments of my old comrades, the legion, members themselves, and their sons and daughters.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

I accept the hon. member's statement. I know that he_ has been an efficient and effective member of the Canadian Legion. That is why I was surprised that he made the statement he did, and I doubted if he intended the meaning it conveyed in print. He has been an excellent member of the legion.

I spoke to some extent about the Manitoba command. I wish to refer just to one wire, among many telegrams and letters which I have received and which I will not take the time of the house to read. This wire is from the president of the Manitoba command of the legion, Mr. C. Rhodes Smith, who also is a Liberal member of the Manitoba legislature, and I am proud to think that we have citizens who at this time rise above party on this great issue.

J. A. Ross, M.P.,

House of Commons,

Ottawa, Ont.

Manitoba command Canadian Legion which embraces your constituency and comprises one hundred fifty branches strongly urges you acquaint yourself with statement issued by our dominion council November sixth addressed people of Canada regarding necessity for conscription in view urgency of situation and requests your support of same in forthcoming session.

C. Rhodes Smith,

President.

I do not know that it was necessary that I should do this, because on November 10, 1941, as is recorded on pages 4210 and 4211 of Hansard, I spoke and endorsed in full the Canadian Legion brief which had been presented on October 21 of that same year to the Prime Minister and the cabinet. I think probably I was the first member of the house to do that. The independent Liberal member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) about the same time took the same stand; we were the first to do so. In proof of my stand on that date, I quote some of my remarks. While endorsing the Canadian Legion's brief, which was presented to the government on October 21, I said:

At this time, after all that has happened, as one soldier to another might I suggest that he-

Colonel Ralston.

-shake off the cloak of political expediency and cabinet solidarity, and really face the critical national situation in which we find ourselves. This is not a matter that affects his department alone. ... I believe the situation overseas is much more critical than many people throughout Canada realize.

Ever since the fall of France I have taken the definite stand that, whenever D-day arrived-and I had no idea when it would be-we were going to suffer considerable casualties; and as the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) said, from previous experience we would have to provide heavy reinforcements when those casualties occurred. In his three-hour discussion the other night the Prime Minister spoke of the five years of conflict. True enough, but let me remind him that it is only six months since D-day, and the great bulk of our infantry casualties have been incurred during that six-months period-not over the five years but over the past six months. It was for this expected situation that I had been so concerned ever since the fall of France and other countries during 1940.

I had an experience a couple of days before I left to come to this session. While travelling on the train I met an old gentleman who had come to this country from mid-Europe. He was talking to a neighbour of his who comes from northern Manitoba. He stated to his neighbour that he had three sons in the services, one active and two in this drafted army. The tears were running down his face as he told us of the embarrassment which he felt in his own neighbourhood because of this situation. He, said, "You know, I come from Europe,, and I have always supported the Prime Minister and his government." "But," he said, and I will not repeat exactly the expressions he used, "if he and his spineless government had passed that one order making all of these boys available for overseas service, I would not live in that state of embarrassment with my neighbours to-day, and I would be proud of all three sons." It is not the easiest thing in the world for a father to tell young men of twenty-four or twenty-five years of age or thereabouts what their duty is. They have an opinion of their own. He places the blame distinctly on the Prime Minister and his government.

I think of a woman, a neighbour of mine, who, as a girl in her teens, during the last war witnessed her father go to war in 1915. Since 1939 she has seen her husband, a brother and a son go to this war, and her husband is now a casualty. That is only one of many cases in this country. It has been said by many of these people that one who is not a father cannot possibly realize just what this terrible situation means. Think of the woman I have just mentioned, and the womanhood of Canada who are so interested in the support

War Effort-Government Policy

of our gallant fighting forces overseas to-day. Surely they are entitled to some just consideration in this issue.

In my opinion there are only two or three ministers now on the government front benches who carry great weight or the necessary degree of confidence of the Canadian public. The public has much greater confidence in these ministers and the minister Who was forced to retire than they have in the Prime Minister. We had the example of Chamberlain and the difficulties in Britain when he called on Churchill to succeed him without an election. If the few ministers I have referred to are determined to carry on our war effort on a party basis and under the present Prime Minister, then democracy, for which our boys are fighting, should be allowed to function.

The house will remember that the other evening the Prime Minister said that he was indispensable in this house-he did not use those exact words-when he dealt with the matter of a minister of his cabinet assuming the leadership. The retired Minister of National Defence dealt with that pretty fully and proved the insincerity of the gesture. There is no argument about that.

If a minister of the government is not prepared to assume the responsibility, then the democracy that our boys are fighting and dying for to-day should be allowed to function. Speaking for myself, I am convinced that there would be an alternate in this country, that a man would be found in whom the public would have faith. I do not want to be misunderstood in what I am about to say, because my colleague, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) made it very clear in his statement the other day, for which he said he had the authority of our leader, that we offered to cooperate with any government under a proper leader for the prosecution of the war. I say that under democracy that alternate would be the Hon. John Bracken, a man well versed in the science of government. He has at this time at least six elected members in this group- and I am not one of them, so do not misjudge me-who would be stronger ministers than the average of the ministers of the present government. I am going to name two or three other individuals whether the people like it or not, because I consider it my duty as a citizen of Canada very much concerned about this whole situation. He has the Hon. Charles P. McTague, who has resigned from the bench, something that a man very rarely does in Canadian history, a man with a lot of ability. He has Henry Borden, who was coordinator

in munitions and supply, an able man. He has James McDonald, who has had wide experience in finance, and there are many others.

Mr. ROEBUCK:

Are any of these men in parliament?

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

I am satisfied that Mr. Bracken could obtain the services of strong and outstanding Canadian citizens who have refused posts under the present Prime Minister.

A general election was recently held in that great nation to the south of us, the United States of America. I know that the retired Minister of National Defence has found some objection to the possibility of an election; but any of the hon. members who followed the election campaign in the United States know that the issue there was chiefly the president's leadership during this war. It could not be taken away from the leadership of that great president. People understood that that was the issue. If there was an election in Canada to-day you could not take the people away from the -one issue, the lack of leadership in Canada. Voting took place early last month in the United States without all -the cruelty and the other absurdities which the Prime Minister spoke of the other night in his all-out plea to retain office at all costs.

My colleague, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, spoke of our offer to cooperate under proper leadership which is now so lacking in this government. But the citizens of Canada, and more important the men and women overseas have no confidence in the present Prime Minister or the present Minister of National Defence, Mr. McNaughton. That reminds me of an article I saw in a newspaper the other day: "This team will bear watching." The ex-minister has taken on something if he is going to watch them and obtain reinforcements in the numbers that are necessary. I think that statement is relevant at this time, that that team will bear watching In fact, many people across Canada do not and cannot trust either of them. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence said that they do not believe in the policy which was set forth on November 23. Members of the present cabinet are distinctly divided on this issue. Let me repeat, as other hon. members have done, that I think they should rise in their places in this house before we adjourn and state where they stand on the matter of future orders in council for reinforcements.

There is rancour and unrest throughout the country. For all of this evil the Prime Minister, with his political evasions and manoeuvres, is directly and wholly responsible.

War Effort-Government Policy

Read the speech of the former Minister of National Defence-the most damning indictment of a public leader ever pronounced in a Canadian parliament or probably in any democratic parliament of the world. There can be no mistake about this. The former minister told of the various inaccuracies in statements of the Prime Minister about a cabinet council meeting. He quoted from Hansard contradictory statements of the Prime Minister. He said that lie believed in the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), but that to vote for it might defeat the present government, that an election now might impede the sending of reinforcements and that he has the Prime Minister's word that further orders in council will be passed if required for reinforcements.

I cannot understand what the Prime Minister's word could mean to the ex-Minister of National Defence at this stage, taking his own speech as proof. How can he accept the statement with no further assurance? I put it to every hon. member in this house. What would the Minister of Agriculture say about the passing of further orders in council to send reinforcements overseas? What would other ministers say?

On March 30, 1939, at page 2419 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as having said:

I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe. The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power no such measure will be enacted.

Then on July 22, 1942, at page 4564 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:

When the government decides that it is necessary and advisable to resort to conscription as a method of raising men for service overseas, an order in council will be passed dealing with members of the forces as a whole. It will not be a matter of passing a series of orders in council, but one order in council will cover the entire force.

On November 23, 1944, at page 6516 of Hansard, the Prime Minister placed, on record a copy of order in council P.C. 8891, setting forth the policy of the government with respect to the extension of service of N.R.M.A. personnel, but limiting it to 16,000 men and to certain theatres of war. What are you going to make of his further promise to see that, these things are done, in view' of the three quotations I have read from Hansard. The second statement to which I referred was made in. reply to a question asked1 by the then hon. member for Weyburn, now Premier Douglas

[Mr. J. A. Ross.l

of Saskatchewan. On that same day I was questioning the Prime Minister and pointed out what had been done in England, asking him if he would follow the same course if he had to enforce conscription. At that time I said:

. . . many people throughout the country,

especially in the armed forces, have not very much confidence in the government as constituted with the present leader; they pin their faith to the ministers of the armed forces.

That can be found at page 4565 of Hansard for July 22, 1942. If that was the situation, then I ask hon. members, what must be the situation to-day among members of the armed services and their dependents both overseas and in Canada?

My time is getting rather short, Mr. Speaker, but I want to ask every hon. member of this house conscientiously to rise above party and past prejudices and heed the penetrating appeal of the ordinary family people across this country to give them the assurance for which they are asking. They are not asking it for themselves. Let there be an end to obstructive evasion in the face of a human need which is at once so urgent and so clear. I shall support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Peel asking for an all-out war effort. I cannot agree with the halting attitude expressed by the exMinister of National Defence the other evening and supported this afternoon by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew), the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) and others, who think there might be some difficulty about getting men overseas during an election. Frankly, I do not want an election-

Mr. ROEBUCK:

You are wise.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

-but I feel that I must do everything in my power to see that reinforcements are provided for our lads overseas. There is nothing I will not do, at any time, no matter what may be the sacrifice, to see that these reinforcements are provided. I cannot follow the argument of the hon. member for Prince, who left the cabinet, who pointed out all the inaccuracies of the Prime Minister' up to a given point, but then said, "I must support this government because the Prime Minister has made another promise, and I must give him another chance." I just cannot support that halting attitude, which was taken also by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., the hon. member for Lambton West and others, including the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who went right to the brink, who stated that they believed what

War Effort-Government Policy

is embodied in our amendment but simply could not agree with this party. The amendment I intend to support reads:

This house is of the opinion that the government has not made certain of adequate and continuous trained reinforcements by requiring all N.R.M.A. personnel whether now or hereafter enrolled to serve in any theatre of war, and has failed to assure equality of service and sacrifice.

A moment ago I believed the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) cut in with a remark which I ignored at the time, because I had not much longer to speak. He stated that I was wise in not wanting an election. This government has an up-to-date political organization in operation. As the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) stated last evening, they have had all their publicity ready for many months; as a matter of fact I believe the Prime Minister indicated the other evening that they could have had an election two years ago and that he would have swept the country. I know something of the reports coming to the head office of this Liberal organization in regard to the situation throughout the country, and after studying the Prime Minister's proposal it seems to me that he is more concerned about winning an election than about reinforcements for overseas. I believe that to be a true statement of fact. While I do not want an election, I have no fear of one. However, I am more concerned about reinforcements, although I cannot be bluffed by the Prime Minister or any other member of the government on this issue at this time.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house, moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), asks that this house shall aid the government in its policy of maintaining a vigorous war effort. As one of those coming from the main soldier city of the dominion, a city which in two wars has contributed so many men, I regret to say that I cannot support the motion. I have come to that conclusion purely from the point of view of the soldiers. This house knows very well the steps that were taken by this government from the time it came to office in 1935 until the outbreak of war and since; and the policy has not been by any means productive of a vigorous war effort, nor have they maintained it.

As far as voluntary recruiting is concerned, I do not believe it was given the chance it should have had. As you very properly said in a ruling the other evening, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of this house either to approve or to disapprove the policy of the government. That is also the duty of this opposition,

because often in the past criticism has been a tonic that has caused the government to take action. I am glad that the former minister of national defence (Mr. Ralston) has been vindicated in the action he took, that his judgment and wisdom in regard to overseas reinforcements have been upheld, but he should have gone farther. I have never, during the last war or between the wars or during this war, spoken on this matter as a partisan, nor am I a partisan in the strict sense of that word. My duty is to the soldiers overseas. As the former minister said in the last two lines of the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister, his first duty as a minister was to the troops overseas. I believe that in that stand he has the overwhelming support of the people of Canada. In my opinion the way the minister was turned out of office, after having taken the stand he did, was not creditable to the Liberal party or to the government of this country. I believe that the verdict of the people as a whole is that the House of Commons is better than the cabinet; they have shown that in the last two weeks. The House of Commons is vastly superior to the government of the day, and the public, back in the constituencies, are far better than the House of Commons; they know more than we do. The other day I referred to the great losses that have been suffered. Over a thousand boys from the secondary schools of my city have lost their lives during the present war. In almost every block in my constituency there has been a casualty during this war, some boy wounded, missing or killed. I believe that the present government on the man-power question and equality of service has been everything by fits and starts, and nothing very long.

I was not very anxious to take part in this debate and would not have done so but for the large number of letters I have received since we adjourned last August, and the casualties we have suffered in the Mediterranean area, in the low countries and in France. I have been astounded and almost appalled to read the daily reports issued by the government showing the casualties suffered. In days like these I believe moderation should be the supreme law for all, but we should be sane and honest with one another and with our soldiers overseas. I speak what I believe to be the truth. I would not hurt or offend any person in this house by any remark I might make, but we cannot all think alike, and I must say, temperately and moderately, that what I believe to be the truth should be said in a crisis such as this. I believe that we should pursue a policy of malice toward none and charity toward all, even though we cannot see each other's point

6744 COMMONS

War Effort-Government Policy

of view. It has been said that England invented the phrase, "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition", and that took place under a Tory government, with Danby who invented the party system. This made criticism of the administration as much a part of parliamentary life as the administration itself. As I have said, in times past criticism has stirred this government to action.

As I said in the house the other day, the government has turned a complete somersault from voluntary service to conscription, and I must say that does no credit to the party system. In less than twenty-four hours the government of the day and the new minister made a complete change. I did not ask the new minister any questions; I did not want to do so; I felt sorry for him in attempting a hard task, since I had known him for so long. I believe that it is an error in wisdom and judgment on his part, and it would have been far better if he had left things as they were, and not accepted office. He would have received more support from the soldiers' and the people of this country. ,

As I survey the ups and downs of our man-power policy since the beginning of the war I am reminded of the words of Tennyson's "In Memoriam":

Let knowledge grow from more to more.

That is badly needed in the House of Commons to-day, in connection with this question. But Tennyson, in his "In Memoriam," justifies the wishes and the judgment of those on the opposite benches who have supported a total war, and all-out aid for our soldiers overseas. He says:

Our little systems have their day

They have their day and cease to be;

They are but broken lights of thee,

And thou, 0 Lord, art more than they.

This system of voluntary enlistment had run its course months and months ago. Why did Brigadier Mess resign? I can remember that before the house adjourned in August the former Minister of National Defence projected a most elaborate publicity programme in an effort to do his utmost to put the voluntary recruiting system on its feet. Appeals were made in the secondary schools. I am sorry to say that it would have been far better if they had stayed out of the schools.

However, a real effort was made. That system was dead and gone long ago, beyond recall. I saw the stores and rooms which were opened in support of voluntary recruiting. Day by day I passed those stores, but I never saw a soul in them, with the exception

[Mr. Church.}

of some officials. I do not criticize the officers of the department, because I know they did their best. But I believe that system of voluntary enlistment was finished, in this country.

I can remember meeting hundreds of

soldiers who have returned home with wounds, after the heavy fighting in Italy, France and the low countries. I have seen them at the railway stations as they have travelled on the trains, as they have been in hospitals and in their homes, and I have received many letters from overseas. One after another has told me that the voluntary system was wrong and unfair, that it was unjust and produced inequalities of service and treatment. They have pointed out that it has used people on one side of the street in one way and the people on the other side in another way, without any equality of service and sacrifice. That was where the first mistake was made. We should have had a different system from the beginning of the war.

This is a changing war. It changes from day to day, from week to week and from month to month. That applies, too, to the equipment and the instruments of war. Something should have been done long ago to remedy the present situation. As I see it, this is not a conscription debate. One day in the house I asked the Minister of Justice of that day about this matter. I believe that was at a time shortly before the outbreak of war. In reply to my question he told me that the conscription act of 1917 was still on the statute books, and it is also in the Militia Act and in the N.R.M.A. I believe my question to that effect could be found in Hansard.

Then, we have had conscription for home defence and defence of adjacent territory since the passage of bill No. 80. In addition to that we have had it through the draftees' policy which has been followed for the last two years. But, after condemning the former Minister of National Defence the government turns right around and adopts the policy of conscription, which in my opinion is not total conscription at all under their order in council.

There is no use in our trying to trifle with the public in that fashion. We are told that

60.000 draftees have been called, and of that number the Prime Minister admits that

42.000 are available for army training. Sixteen thousand of them have had some training, another 8,000 are almost completely trained, and 8,000 more about half trained. Twenty-four thousand of them require further training, but in a few months would be ready to take their place in the line.

War Effort-Government Policy

I am not one who will join in voting in favour of this motion. My vote will be a strictly non-partisan vote, but I will vote against the motion. I am not going to join in any "Te Deum" of praise. I am not joining in any hallelujah chorus, because it was the people back in the constituencies and the press who compelled the government of the day last week to reverse its policy.

Between the two wars the profession of arms was openly laughed at in this chamber. Some said that it was demoralizing, and that all public bodies should oppose it. Those people even went into the schools and supported the policy of pacifism. I am a humble member of a church which agrees with the thirty-nine articles, one of which states that it is lawful for Christian men at the command of the magistrates to take up arms and to serve in the wars.

When I see the efforts which have been made to secure volunteers I must say I am at a loss to understand how the voluntary system lasted as long as it did, because it is not adapted to a war like this. I admit that the resolution now before us is skilfully drawn, but it is full of pitfalls, and it does not mean what it says.

What has been the policy of the government? One day it is a policy of voluntary enlistment, and the next day it is a policy of conscription. There are different points of view; first there is your own view, there is the right view, and there is the other fellow's view. And let us not forget the other fellows' view, and have respect for it. There is "change and decay in all around I see" in this building. This is a most important question that has been placed before the people of Canada. From the start the government has attempted to wage a Liberal war; it did not want any help or advice from the opposition. The result was that the government has not waged the war effort it should have waged.

During two wars and in the period of depression between those wars I supported national service, and equality of service and sacrifice. The people want to know the truth, the whole truth arid nothing but the truth, about this matter. This problem is their problem. But the government could not make up its mind last week, even for twenty-four hours. It is conducting the war, and it is a duty of the government to conduct that war overseas, so long as it is the government of the day.

In the last war a million men went from the dominions to fight. We know that 130,000 of them fell on the field of battle. They went there under their own status, sovereignty and autonomy. They went to the side of the

mother country; her cause was the cause of all, and what they did changed the history of the whole civilized world.

I can remember quite well the period between the two wars when 200,000 youth were coming out of our high schools every year. I can recall the actions of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and his supporters. The other day he attacked the Conservative party, or the Progressive Conservative party as it is now called. We do not need to be called the Progressive Conservative party because we have always been progressive. Some of us between the two wars advocated a policy of rearmament, national service, full publicity of foreign affairs, complete service and sacrifice and of every citizen doing his duty. The dictators solved the unemployment problem in their countries by preparing for war, and we should solve our unemployment problem by preparing for peace.

We must use our natural resources to even out the trade cycle. I contended that full use should be made of the 200,000 youth who were coming out of the high schools yearly during Hitler's ascension to power from 1935 to 1939. I contended that they should have military training instead of having to ride the rods. An apprenticeship system extending over three to five years should have been set up. These youths could have learned a trade and gained some knowledge of our key industries. They should have been given this training, along with their board and lodging and some pocket money, and deferred pay and physical and military training during the depression that engulfed the whole world.

If that action had been taken when the war broke out we would have had 25,000 trained mechanics and pilots for our air force. But nothing was done and I never heard the gentlemen to my left make any protest. Most of them were not even in the house then; some were. They believed in complete pacifism. They thought the war would never come. They argued that we could depend upon Washington and the league for any defence that we needed. Why have we had to go through all .these elaborate ceremonials during the past month?

Since the war started we have had a plebiscite; then we had a census; then we had bill No. 80, and then we had a national selective service register. All this was done when it was the plain duty of the government to wage a total war with total conscription. There should have been a policy of sending adequate reinforcements overseas weekly and monthly as they were needed. These reinforcements should have been sent to our troops who

War Effort-Government Policy

had borne the heat and burden of the day, some of them for nearly four or five years.

What did the government do? It showed a magnificent disregard for the need of a proper survey to show the true facts, and it relied on tradition for the conduct of the war. It operated on old and obsolete war rules; it took the provincial and parochial view of the man-power situation, and there has been no equality of service or sacrifice. It has resorted to the old system since 1640. When I review the situation, when I recall the excuses, coma, inertia, doubt, fear, delays, procrastinations, postponements, fireworks and somersaults that have taken place, I am driven to believe that the government's action is something like what a soldier said of the charge of the Light Brigade which he witnessed: "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." "It is magnificent, but it is not war."

That has been the policy of the government for some time until the minister gave a proper report. Everybody knew that reinforcements were urgently required. Everybody knew that reserves were needed overseas, but until the report of the minister was brought down, nothing was done. The minister had a plan to do it now and do it right, to do it for all time, for yesterday, to-day and forever-to provide total reinforcements of draftees at once.

I have no further confidence that the government will ever solve this question. The whole policy of the Prime Minister has been nothing but shadow-boxing and window-dressing at a time when the main issue has been the absolute and immediate need for reinforcements overseas.

We should not speculate too much about the end of the war, even though Mr. Churchill tells us that it may end by next summer. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) made a prediction, but I do not know whether he was telling a fish story. He said that the war was about at an end. As I say, that may be a fish story in connection with which he is an expert, but the fact is that we should not be prophesying about the end of this war.

No doubt the German army will be beaten. The dictators made the greatest preparations for this war, but we sat and did nothing. The democracies which had made no preparations have beaten the dictators at least so far. If the necessary reinforcements were provided, the war would be shortened. No one can tell when the Germans will capitulate. They are a tough crowd of thugs and murderers, ten times as tough as they were from 1914 to 1918. They are the toughest crowd that has ever been turned out in the history of mili-

tary warfare. A bunch of terrorists, brigands and murderers are now at the head of Germany. They have seized power and they can keep going much longer. They are going to keep going; the fighting will be much harder, and our casualties will be much greater.

Nobody has as yet offered any plan as to how Germany will be curbed after this war. Fortunately the war is being carried to them, but after the war is over we are likely to have lots of trouble with them. One good thing is that many of the young Germans who would be likely to give us the most trouble are being destroyed. Russia and Poland have a plan; they are going to keep one or two million Germans and make them work to rebuild their countries. Those Germans will have to work just for their food and clothing. The same policy should be followed by the low countries, France, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Norway. Camps of these Germans should be established to rebuild these different countries.

I have a few constructive remarks to make to the government in this connection, but before I do so I should like to refer to the fact that Mr. Churchill has just had another birthday. There is one thing about the British constitution; the British have acted the same way in this war as they did in the Crimean war when they put out the Quaker and they put in the pugilist. This pugilist had a birthday yesterday, and he is the one pugilist who is going to give these dictators a complete knockout in a very few months. I have every respect for our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) expressed yesterday. One great advantage of the constitution of the mother country is the fact that in peace or war it can change itself to meet any circumstance or situation. It is said that the British cabinet under Aberdeen during the Crimean war was the greatest cabinet since the Reform Act, 1836; yet that cabinet was put out.

As Sir Walter Bagehot says in his textbook, "The Law and English Constitution":

Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency this people can choose a ruler for the occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion. The great qualities, the imperious will, the rapid energy, the eager nature fit for a great crisis are not required-are impediments-in common times. A Lord Liverpool is better in everyday politics than a Chatham- a Louis Philippe far better than a Napoleon. By the structure of the world we often want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman-to replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm. In England we have had so few catastrophies since our constitution attained maturity, that we hardly appreciate this latent excellence. We have not needed a Cavour to rule a revolution [DOT]-a representative man above all men fit for

War Effort-Government Policy

a great occasion, and by a natural legal mode brought in to rule. But even in England, at what was the nearest to a great sudden crisis which we have had of late years-at the Crimean difficulty-we used this inherent power. We abolished the Aberdeen cabinet, the ablest we have had, perhaps since the Reform Act- a cabinet not only adapted, but eminently adapted, for every sort of merit then wanted, who, when he feels the steady power of England behind him will advance without reluctance, and will strike without restraint. As was said at the time, "we turned out the Quaker, and put in the pugilist."

During the first days of this parliament one hon. member used some remarks which I did not then concur in. The statement was made that the ministry should resign. I take issue with this position. As I have said before, the people elected this government with 178 seats. They were elected by the Canadian people, and therefore the responsibility rests upon the government to conduct the war as long as they are the government and to make an allout effort so that our troops shall receive the necessary reinforcements.

I agree with what the member for Dufferin-Simcoe said with reference to the Prime Minister. I believe in moderation, especially in these days, and I have already given my reasons why we cannot all share the same views. I suggest to the government, however, that the army needs men. There are too many men now in the R.C.A.F. Why could we not have a division of R.C.A.F. infantry organized? I have seen dozens of these young fellows just out of high school, and many of them spent all summer aUd all fall erecting wooden structures in connection with the training in No. 1 manning pool. They were devoting their time to this work night and day. I suggest that a ground division of R.C.A.F. infantry could be organized, because I have seen many of these lads marking time day after day and they would be glad to go active.

I would ask the government, what has been done to transfer available men from the R.C.A.F. for service overseas. Another thing I would point out to the government is that only about one-eighth of one per cent of the men overseas are getting home this Christmas. I suggest, in order to aid recruiting, that something should be done to extend the time of our soldiers in Canada over Christmas and New Year. They should have three or four days additional for travelling. I have seen letters from mothers in my constituency saying that their boys just managed to get home from the maritimes and had to go back on Christmas evening.

These serving men should be looked after by the government. Why can there not be more transportation for them? Transportation

is provided for different people travelling all over Canada. Look at the control boards. The trains throughout the country are crowded with people who could very well make room for our fighting men. We have people travelling with missions to the old land and to the United States. In fact, we have in Washington a small expeditionary force there. There is no trouble about transportation for them; why should our soldiers overseas not get transportation home with all the aid our navy and shipping can give if we had reinforcements?

As regards these 16,000 men for whom the order in council makes provision, we could raise from fifty to sixty or seventy thousand men if we went about it properly. Many of our young soldiers of eighteen or nineteen years of age are being killed, and others have been overseas for three, four and five years. They should be brought home for keeps, and something should be done about that immediately.

This is a war that is changing from month to month and I should like to see some clarification of this order in council. I do not want to bother the new minister with questions, but there is one important matter that I would bring to his attention. I would ask him this question: Does a civilian lose his rights when he joins the army? When the war broke out we had no army, no navy, no air force, nothing; we had to start from scratch. We have a citizens army in this country because we had to start from scratch. But it seems that when certain soldier people discuss matters of vital concern to the country action is taken to curb them. If they wish to express an opinion concerning a military question, the question of volunteer service versus compulsion, steps are taken to prevent them from expressing their views. Should all their civilian rights be taken away from them because they join the army? No one has any right to take away the rights of our citizens. They have not done so in the United States. Look at the campaign that has been carried on in that country. No such attempt has been made to prevent men from expressing their views. Nor have I heard of any such action having been taken in England. I hope the new order will be cancelled.

I brought this matter to the attention of the former minister. I pointed out to him that apparently a citizen has no rights when he joins the army. The former minister two years ago abrogated the order and it became of no effect. The same should be done here.

May I offer some other suggestions to the government. I would say: Keep out of the secondary schools for recruiting. The secon-

War Effort-Government Policy

daryi schools have cadet corps, military training and all that kind of thing, but for those of sixteen and seventeen, the application was refused by the board of education for Toronto.

I have yet to hear anyone sum up the cardinal principles of the new elaborate recruiting policy. Another thing I object to is this. I know some of the commanding officers; I have known some of them for a great many years. I do not believe that it was wise to use any compulsion to adopt a system that was through, with respect to these commanding officers when they came to Ottawa, in the discussion with the new minister. One of these men came from Winnipeg, a fine citizen and) a good soldier, and he has resigned. He would not put up with it. I venture to say that if some of these men could tell us what was going on at that time hon. members would agree with me that instead of having the new minister here we should have had the commanding officers. I am sure they could tell more than the present minister. I have not spoken ten words to him since the war started, but I have always had a great respect for him. I believe, however, that he showed poor judgment in becoming a politician.

We should have the reports of the heads of military districts before us. I asked the former minister a question about this in the house with reference to the dispatch of troops to Italy and why they were kept in England for four years. I asked why it was that we had no soldiers with General Montgomery in the march across the desert in Africa when there were tens of thousands of Australians and New Zealanders, Indians and troops from South Africa. There were none from Canada. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he said that in any event it was not the duty or the function of the commanding officer overseas but primarily the duty and function of the minister. I think he answered the question correctly. I have always had a great admiration and respect for the people of Quebec. I have expressed it on many occasions, during both the present war and the last war. In the debate on August 4 last on foreign affairs I said that France would always be a great nation, and made other remarks in that connection; and I compliment the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) upon having called yesterday upon the citizens of his province to obey the law, remain calm and not destroy property or use unlawful means.

Let it not be forgotten that Britain has sustained half the losses on the sea and in the air while some of our present allies were neutral; and, as I have reminded the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr.

LaCroix), but for the mother country during two years after Dunkirk, we would have known the awful horrors of war on our own soil, not only in Quebec but in Ontario and the maritimes; we would have suffered the gestapo, the whip, the loud speaker, the concentration camp, and the removal of thousands and tens of thousands of our citizens to Germany to work.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has exeeded his time.

On motion of Mr. Tremblay the debate was adjourned.

Mr. GRAYDON:

May I rise to a question of privilege? It has to do with the question of the amendment which was moved to a government motion this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice. As my hon. friend moved the amendment it occurred to me that it was a strange procedure, having regard to the fact that no notice had been given of his resignation as a parliamentary assistant. I asked him then- I do not know whether the Prime Minister was in the chamber at the time-if he had resigned, and he said that he had. It seemed to me that it was a pretty important point, because it was a major amendment against the government motion made by the right-hand man of one of the major ministers of the crown. I do not think it is enough for my hon. friend to say that he has resigned; I think the resignation must be accepted by the government; I do not believe that a parliamentary assistant can just walk out of his job while he is moving an amendment and afterwards move back into the position again, without the public-in common street parlance-feeling that there is "a nigger in the woodpile" with respect to the whole matter. I do not want the Minister of Justice to be suspected by the public as being one of those who were engineering a move of that kind, and I think the fact that the parliamentary assistant has resigned-

Mr. JEAN:

On a point of order-

Mr. GRAYDON:

I am on a point of order myself. May I finish? If the parliamentary assistant has resigned, and if his resignation has been accepted by the ministry and he is out once and for all, that, I think, removes the possibility to which I have referred. But he cannot be out and in at the same time. I suggest that the matter should be made perfectly clear, and I would like to have tabled on Monday, by the Prime Minister,

Questions

first, the letter of resignation of my hon. friend, and also the acceptance by the government-which, of course must have occurred before now.