Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):

Mr. Speaker, we meet here at a time of great events which are shaping the future of the whole world. Our course should be in keeping with the lofty purpose of those who are driving fonvard to victory without counting the cost. The political fortunes of any government or of any member of this parliament are wholly unimportant. The one thing that matters is the full and unreserved support of our

6S21

War Effort-Government Policy

fighting men in these crucial days of mounting military struggle when every man, every weapon and every ounce of strength are needed to finish off our tottering enemy before he can regain his strength and his military resources. It is from that point of view that we must examine the facts.

The units of our land forces are in need of reinforcements and in desperate need, as we now know. We have in Canada many thousands of men in various stages of training. The one question for us to answer is whether we have the courage to meet our honourable obligations to our fighting men and see that all men physically fit in uniform will be available as reinforcements without any reservations as to numbers or procedure. That, Mr. Speaker, I submit is the one and only issue before this house. The people of Canada want all-out use of its man-power. They will not be satisfied with any halfhearted and uncertain measure such as the one now before us, and our men overseas most certainly will not be satisfied with anything but honest, open-handed support.

We are told that this course will send 5,000 men over as reinforcements next month. That is not enough. We have been sending that many month after month for years. Normal wastage from sickness and accident would call for that many men under present conditions. It will do very little to bring the fighting units and reinforcement pool up to strength.

It has been claimed by General McNaughton that we got no help or very little help from conscription when it was imposed in 1917 in the last war. Nothing could be farther from the truth. By this means, in the ten months following conscription in the last war the average of recruits obtained was approximately 16,000 a month. The contribution made by Canada's armed forces to the triumph of the last 100 days of the last war was the result of conscription honestly applied. It should be no less to-day. By this limited conscription we are hoping to secure only 16,000- men. If the 156,000 that were obtained under conscription in the last war constituted very little help to reinforce the four divisions then operating in France, what use will 16,000 men be to reinforce the five divisions overseas to-day? This half measure which is proposed will solve nothing. Sixteen thousand draftees are to go, but when, we do not know, and the new Minister of National Defence has not enlightened us. But what of the other 44,000 draftees now in uniform, and what of the thousands who will be drafted during the next few months as they come of age? Are they to

fight or are they not? That is what our men at the front wish to know. Already there is a deep and burning sense of injustice in the minds of our fighting men in the active army. Now a new type of injustice is to be introduced between different groups of draftees. What a spectacle for our allies at a time when their respect and goodwill are so important!

The Minister of National Defence replies that the compulsory system produces inferior fighting men, at a time when the full load of battle on land is being borne by the men of Britain, the United States, Russia and other allied countries whose armies were all raised by total compulsory use of man-power. What strange arguments we have heard! The government is to compel a limited number to serve, but it still does not believe in doing it in that way. The new Minister of National Deferice makes it appear that it would be a grievous sin against national unity if we employed our men in uniform where those men would be of some use. Then in the very act of sinning in this way he vigorously proclaims his unblemished virtue because he has not sinned still more.

This is simply one more shameful episode in five long years of eager searching for the line of least resistance. When we hear of the bitterness which might be caused if we do our duty here, let us all remember the bitterness there will be in the minds and hearts of young men about to risk their lives for our freedom if they learn that once again they are to have some vague formula in the place of reality. Two years ago it was "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription.'' Now, at this turning point in the world's history, when General Eisenhower tells us that every man is needed at the front, we have a new formula offered us, "compulsion if necessary but not necessarily compulsion."

Unless the members of this house show that they are red-blooded men, worthy to be called Canadians, and demand the all-out use of our soldiers in uniform wherever they are needed, we shall be shamed before the whole world and we shall have sown in the minds of the best of our youth seeds of injustice which may bring stern retribution when they return again to their homes in Canada.

The hon. member for Prince (Mr. Ralston), the former minister of national defence, returned recently from the fighting fronts in Italy and northern Europe. What he saw and heard convinced him that reinforcements are desperately needed in the infantry. The former minister of defence is a competent observer. He knows from the experience of three years as minister of defence that the

War Effort-Government Policy

voluntary system will not produce adequate reinforcements. Accordingly, the conscription of able-bodied men of military age for service overseas is imperative. Our men at the front are asking for trained reinforcements. The wounded in the hospitals are pleading for help for comrades still locked in mortal combat with the enemy.

This is a matter of men's lives. Gallant soldiers are spilling their blood while we talk. Brave boys are dying on the Rhine while this government manoeuvres for votes. Any cabinet minister who shrinks from the duty of sending reinforcements is not worthy to occupy a place in the government of Canada. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will not discharge the sacred duty of his office which he has been entrusted with, he should efface himself in the national interest; he should make way at once for a real war leader who is prspared to enact and enforce total conscription to maintain our gallant fighting forces in full strength.

In the speech, made by the Prime [DOT] Minister on June 10, 1942, he said, as reported in Hansard, at page 3234:

It is not the intention of this government to resort to conscription for service overseas unless circumstances should arise which would render the use of compulsion imperative, such for example as the maintenance of the necessary reinforcements for Canada's army overseas.

The former minister of defence says that this time has arrived. However, the Prime Minister dismissed his trusted friend the former minister of national defence because the latter did not give him the advice he desired. His action reminds me of an old friend who never liked to give up his liquor, and when advised to do so by his doctor, got over the difficulty by calling in another doctor. In the same way the Prime Minister would not take Colonel Ralston's advice, but, like my friend, called in another doctor who gave him the advice he wanted. This advice was tendered by General McNaughton in spite of the fact that only a week before he had refused to express an opinion on the reinforcement situation owing to lack of knowledge, because he had been out of the army for nearly a year.

Declarations were made by the former minister of national defence, the minister for the navy and several other ministers in regard to the adoption of conscription for overseas when necessary. I need not repeat those statements. May I say to them that their opportunity has now come to show that when they speak they mean what they say and that the integrity of their word of honour means more to them than the trappings and emoluments of office.

We are led to believe that so bankrupt is the Liberal party in leadership, and this by the Prime Minister, who ought to know, that if he resigned there is not one in his government who can replace him and the government of the country could not be carried on, that it is a case of "King or anarchy." This statement should be resented by at least two or three members of his cabinet. The vote of confidence by his followers for which he is now asking means nothing because they were elected four years ago and the views of the citizens of Canada to-day are overwhelmingly against the Prime Minister and his government. Neither would an affirmative vote retain the confidence of the troops overseas, who are very much perturbed by the limited proposals made by the government.

No country has been so humiliated as we have been by our Prime Minister, who stands condemned before the Canadian people. May I congratulate the former minister of national defence upon the very frank statement he made a few evenings ago, in which he repeated with even greater emphasis the imperative need of additional reinforcements overseas by the end of December. If the Prime Minister had accepted his advice these reinforcements would have left Canada last month in ships already arranged for and been over there in time.

Although the Prime Minister is primarily responsible and must bear the major part of the blame for this delay, the present Minister of National Defence must assume his share of responsibility, as must also the other members of the cabinet. We do not yet know what this delay in the arrival of desperately needed reinforcements will cost in the lives of our brave men at the front, but whatever the cost, the parents and -wives and relatives of those men will hold the Prime Minister and his government responsible.

The present Minister of National Defence has said that arrangements were made soon after the passage of the order in council, for ships to transport 5,000 additional reinforcements towards the end of December. The situation which the former minister of national defence envisages, namely, that there will be a delay in sending these reinforcements unless the present government receives a vote of confidence is not a logical one. The order in council has been passed and is now in effect, and the movement of troops has started and will continue even should there be a change of government or a general election. The activities of the United States arniy did not cease during the presidential election, nor did those-

War Effort-Government Policy

Mr. RALSTON:

That was not run on the question of conscripting needed men to be sent overseas immediately.

Mr. BRUCE:

There was a considerable

controversy in regard to the army during that election. Nor did the activities of the armies cease in Australia or New Zealand during the elections held in those countries. The officers in charge of the administration of defence, the navy and the air force would continue to function even if we were driven to the extremity of having an election at this time in Canada which, although I would deplore it, I do not think would be altogether a misfortune.

May I repeat that the reasons given by the hon. member for Prince for supporting the motion are, in my judgment, unconvincing and illogical, and his whole argument would justify him in supporting the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative party which, from his own statements, represents his views as well as ours.

The Prime Minister the other day made much of the fact that he had asked each member of his cabinet in turn if he wo-uld take on the duties of Prime Minister if he, the Prime Minister, resigned, and they all declined. This was a characteristically empty gesture, just such as the one the Prime Minister made to Mr. John Bracken when he said he would not oppose him if he stood for election in Selkirk. He knew quite well that no Liberal or Conservative could be elected there. He made the same gesture to Mr. Meighen in South York and everyone knows how faithfully he carried it out. Death or the electorate alone will separate the Prime Minister from his office.

In order to keep the record straight I would like to affirm that at no time did I agree with the policy of the then leader of the Conservative party, Doctor Manion, in regard to conscription. I have always felt, as I have indicated in a number of speeches made in this house, that conscription of man-power was the only way to ensure equality of service and sacrifice. At that time I favoured a national government because I believed that it was only in that way that we could get a maximum war effort and preserve national unity.

Moreover, I was imbued with the necessity of having as leader of the government at this critical period of the war a man who himself knew by experience what war meant. In .my first speech as a member of this house on May 24, 1940, I gave reasons why the present Prime Minister should step aside and make way for a man who had distinguished himself in the field of battle. Everything that has

100-429J

occurred since in the conduct of this war under the present Prime Minister has amply justified the position I took at that time.

I wish to refer now for a moment to the question that was brought up by the Prime Minister's suggestion that he would visit the governor general and advise him as to his successor. There is not the slightest doubt that a retiring Prime Minister has no right even to offer advice as to his successor, let alone have it accepted. It is entirely within the discretion of the crown to ask or not to ask for such advice. There is also not the slightest doubt that even if the crown chooses to ask for such advice it is not bound to follow it. There is certainly ample authority for this position as far as the United Kingdom is concerned; and in the absence of very strong and positive proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the same rules hold in Canada.

I need refer only to Lowell's "Government of England", which book I have under my hand, 1920 edition, volume 1, page 34, where both the rule and the reasons for it are admirably stated. Marriott's "This Realm of England", at pages 25, 329, 340-1, 350, confirms the same viewpoint. Jennings in his "Cabinet Government", at pages 20-46, also confirms this practice. The case of Mr. Galdstone's retirement in 1894 is, of course, classic and conclusive. There was no crisis, no question of a change of party or anything of that kind; merely a question as to which of Mr. Gladstone's colleagues should succeed him as head of the Liberal government carrying out precisely the same policies as Mr. Gladstone's government. Queen Victoria did not even ask for Mr. Gladstone's advice as to his successor, although he was fully prepared to give it if asked, and not even Mr. Gladstone, with his unequalled experience and authority, had the temerity to offer the advice unasked. That will be found in Morley's "Life of Gladstone", volume 3, at pages 512-514. If I had time I would read it to the house.

As to Canada, I may refer to Sir John A. Macdonald's clear and explicit statement of the true constitutional doctrine in Pope's "Correspondence of Sir John Macdonald", at page 316; also Sir Richard Cartwright's statement in his "Reminiscences", the volume of which I have here, at pages 117, 119, 120 and 121.

In 1926 the Prime Minister appeared to claim for himself, among other non-existent rights, the right to name his own successor. As will be seen on page 1 of Sir Richard Cartwright's reference, this claim has never received any support from even the most biased authorities.

War Effort-Government Policy

If a government is defeated in the house or at the polls the modern rule would appear to be that the crown must, on the retirement of the government, send first for the leader of the opposition. Only if the leader of the opposition refuses to take office is the crown at liberty to consult others; and it may then consult whom it pleases. When a prime minister retires without having been defeated in the house or at the polls the crown may consult whom it pleases. This is certainly Jennings' view and appears to be Lowell's. This view may be found in Jennings' work on "Cabinet Government". Hon. members may read it if they wish. It seems clearly good sense.

Again, the presumption is that the same rule holds in Canada as in Britain, and that presumption can be overthrown only by clear and positive evidence to the contrary. So far as I am aware no such evidence exists.

Mr. King, in his letter of July 3, 1926, told Lord Byng that he "could not assume the responsibility of advising Your Excellency to send for Mr. Meighen". That will be found in Dawson's "Constitutional Issues", at page 75. There was no need for him to assume any such responsibility. If there is one point in British constitutional practice which is firmly established, it is that the crown is not obliged to accept, or even to ask, the advice of an outgoing prime minister as to who his successor should be, even if the same party remains in power. The authorities for this statement are legion.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. BRUCE:

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion,

may I say that if this country wants chicanery, instead of fidelity to our fighting sons and to our honour, then the Prime Minister is the right man to keep in charge. If we want twistings and contortions and political gymnastics, he has had more experience than any other man alive. If the Canadian people are true to themselves and still have regard for common decency, respect for our past and our name in history, they will take command of this crisis and insist upon the selection of a leader in whom the nation can have confidence, one who will surround himself with the best brains to be found in the country, either within this house or without, members of any political party or of none, men who know the meaning of sacrifice and of honour.

To be indifferent to the call of honour, to desert our hard-pressed and hard-fighting sons and brothers, is to make this country infamous forever.

Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (Perth):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some brief observations in this important debate which is before parliament and this country. History will record it as the most important and far-reaching in its consequences, not for a day, a week or a month, but down the years to come.

The government of the day under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has a war record, to date, second to none of the allies fighting with Canada in the same cause, on land, on the sea and in the air, for victory and peace. In my humble judgment, since the war started in 1939 the government of the day has received from all parties and groups in the house considerable support pertaining to the war. This is as it should be. We are all united for victory and peace. The government of the day has also received strong support from all the people in every province in its victory loans, with every loan oversubscribed by millions of dollars. The people of Canada, wherever they live, east or west, north or south, are war conscious, not politically conscious. They want the government to go on with the war without hesitating, and the government of the day or any other government that might be formed, should beware. The voters who send members to parliament are not thinking of political parties or candidates at the next election. They are working and praying for victory and peace, and that our gallant men overseas will never lack reinforcements.

I now come to the mounting casualties as shown in the army lists we receive each day, and I am afraid these casualties will continue for a long time. Do not let us fool ourselves by thinking and saying this war will be over in a few months. We must fight, and with all our might, to the bitter end.

To my hon. friends from Quebec I wish to say briefly that all down through the years since 1925, when I was first elected to parliament, they have been very kind to me. I have many close friends who come from Quebec. I do not hold the same views on conscription that they do, but when I retire from political life I shall always cherish my friendship with them.

I should like also to pay sincere tribute to the former minister of national defence (Mr. Ralston), the former minister of national defence for air (Mr. Power), the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Munitions and

War Effort-Government Policy

Supply (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and I should like also to wish the new Minister of National Defence, General McNaughton, every success in his new responsibilities.

My riding in Ontario, the county of Perth, is very strong for conscription. A very large majority voted "yes" in the plebiscite, as the records will show.

In closing, may I say that I sincerely hope that before the January session commences the Minister of National Defence will be able to send overseas all the reinforcements needed by our fighting men. With this in mind I will vote against the amendment and in favour of the main motion.

Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):

It may be a somewhat surprising statement to make, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to commence by saying that in my opinion this meeting of parliament has been entirely unnecessary and a waste of time and public money. Let me tell you why I make that statement. In 1942 this parliament adopted legislation which gave this government unlimited power to carry on the war that it had declared in 1939. The government needed nothing further from parliament to enable it, in the words of the Prime Minister's motion, "to maintain a vigorous war effort." At each session parliament has voted ample sums of money. The people of Canada have lent the government all and more than has been asked of them with which to wage war.

For this war this government had the experience of the last war as a guide. The government of that day attempted to keep its army on the battle front up to strength by voluntary enlistment. It failed. That was nearly thirty years ago, and it was proved then beyond any doubt that it could not be done. There was no reason to believe that the voluntary system would be successful in this war after it had been proved a failure in the last war. The plans of the government in this war entailed a much larger fighting force than in the last war, which made it all the more difficult to keep that force up to strength. What this government should have done, as it knew at the time and was derelict in its duty in not doing, was to have adopted compulsory selective service from the beginning of the war, with equality of service and of sacrifice for all. If this had been done there would be no meeting of parliament here today; there would have been no crisis; there would have been no disunity. That would have been the law of the land for the past five years, just as it has been in the United States and most of the other allied nations.

As an illustration of the unfairness of the voluntary enlistment system let us suppose that another member of this house and I were young men again, healthy and fit in every way for army service and in a position to answer the country's call. The other man volunteers. He goes forth to war, offering his all; perhaps he gives his life. Should I be allowed to shirk my duty and remain at home in safety and comfort, perhaps also profitably, while he gives his very life for me? I do not think any hon. member would say that was fair, but that is what the voluntary system of enlistment amounts to. The loyal, brave men go; those not so brave stay at home, while battles are fought and lives are lost on their behalf. That is the policy of this government. In my opinion every healthy inhabitant of Canada of war age owes his life to the state. The man of money owes his money to the state; and when the state needs that money it takes it without compunction. How much money would the government get from income taxes if it took only the money of those who volunteered to pay?

Before continuing to discuss the policy of the government and its effects let me bring to the attention of the house a press report with regard to the treatment accorded our men in the way of transportation when returning from the front. This is a letter published in the first issue of the new weekly, The Oversea* Mail, published in Montreal. The Vancouver Sun copies it, saying that it knows nothing about the publication and nothing about the writer of the letter except his palpable sincerity. The facts, however, are supported by the word of hosts of others in uniform who have gone through the same experience. This is his story:

Editor, Sir: Now please don't get me wrong, because this isn't a grouch. I just want to know something in a quiet sort of way.

Why is it that us men who left Canada three or four years ago and went overseas boasting about how good our country was, come back to find we have got to eat a good many of our words? The other day I arrived back for 28 days' foreign service leave, along with a crowd of R.C.N. ratings, some soldier casualties, and a few Royal Navy lads on duty.

We disembarked at New York, and were treated by the American Red Cross exactly as if we were Yanks ourselves. You know the kind of thing they give you. . . . The moment you land you're handed doughnuts, a cup of real coffee (for a change), a chocolate bar and a container of milk if you want it. It makes you feel good, and kind of proud to be "home", even though you have to remind yourself you're still in the states.

You see the amazed looks on the faces of the British sailors, and you think well, that's impressed them a bit, anyway.

Then they put you on a swell pullman train with bunks for everybody and plenty of good food in the diners, served the way you remember

War Effort-Government Policy

it used to be. So you keep on crowing to the British boys about it always being like this in Canada.

Then suddenly, you hit the border. And you're no sooner across the border into Canada than you, and the wounded pongoes, and the R.N. are transferred into an ancient, dirty, colonist car where you are crowded in four to a seat for a 24-hour journey, and where the filth is literally knee-deep. And smell!

They give you your grub in a central galley and you carry it back to your seat to eat it. The plates often aren't clean and you can't keep the cinders out of the stew-and even without the cinders the stew can't compare with the ordinary rations you've been getting in Britain for quality.

The train I was transferred to at the border was all that and worse. It would have been bad enough if they'd given us that sort of hard

fraft from the start in New York-and remem-er that we had one guy with both legs amputated and another with only one arm and the dressings still on it. and another guy with something the matter with his eyes-all France casualties. But when they treat us good to the border and then make us look so cheap once we're in Canada, well, it makes you wonder what the score is.

Surely there isn't a shortage of railway carriages, now that the big troop movements are over? Even in Britain we never travelled as crumbily as on that journey, even in the middle of the blitz!

I'd just like to know the answer so that I won't have to feel ashamed the next time I meet one of the British sailors on that draft.

That is something for the government to consider and to rectify.

To resume, the government of former days and the government of to-day tried to keep their armies in battle up to strength by voluntary enlistments, and both failed. The former minister of national defence did all he could to make that system, the policy of his leader, successful. He tried for nearly five years, and then he went over to the battle front and consulted with the officers commanding there. They called for reinforcements. He saw for himself that they needed them. He returned to Canada and reported to the Prime Minister and to his cabinet colleagues the dire need of the volunteer army for reinforcements and told them that they could not be had by voluntary enlistment. That should have been enough. The former minister of national defence was not speaking as one without experience. He has a proud war record, a record that some of his colleagues should envy. He speaks by the book. What did the government do? Did they answer the call for help from our gallant men over there, the call relayed to them by the former minister of national defence? No, instead they turned a deaf ear to the call of these men in their extremity. Why? Not because they did not believe that help was needed, but because they feared that if avail-

able help were sent they would lose some political support in a certain part of Canada.

The Prime Minister cast about him for a Moses to lead him and his government out of the dilemma in which they had placed themselves. They thought they had found one in General McNaughton, who told them he believed he could get the sorely needed help by the old, played-out voluntary system. What reason was there to suppose he understood Canada better than the former minister of defence who for five years had tried it out and found it a failure?

The former minister of defence was forced to resign. He was replaced by General McNaughton. It did not take General

McNaughton five years to fail, or five months to fail. He failed from the beginning; he is failing now.

What happened? The former minister of defence recommended to the government that the men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act be sent on active service in answer to the call for help from the men on the battle fronts. For that he was forced out of the cabinet, and within a remarkably short time his successor finds that his predecessor was right and he, McNaughton, was wrong. The government of which he is a member surrendered and adopted a policy of limited conscription.

General McNaughton, now Minister of National Defence, is opposed to that new policy, even declaring in this house that he will not carry it out unless he is forced to do so. Imagine a minister of the crown saying that of the policy of his government, that he will not carry it out unless he is forced to do so! He disagrees with the policy of his government, but he does not resign his lucrative position as a member of the government.

Since his appointment to his present office as Minister of National Defence he has made two public speeches, one at Arnprior and one at Ottawa. In both those speeches General McNaughton not only defended the voluntary principle as against conscription, but insisted upon its superiority. He especially asked the Ottawa audience of veterans to hear the exact words he used at Arnprior. He said he advised the government

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when the present speaker, the hon. member for Yukon, was in your Chair I happened to be one of the humble members, and he would not allow me to read a telegram. Therefore I take objection that he reads his speech.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

The previous speaker, the former Deputy Speaker, has just read his.

War Effort-Government Policy

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

General McNaughton said he advised the government, when he was summoned "to form and lead the Canadian army overseas", thus:

I made it clear that we could carry our effort to success if we based it on a voluntary system.

Again he remarked:

I say if that army had been raised otherwise than by the voluntary method we would have had no army worthy of the name. .

Mark those words, "no army worthy of the name."

What about the British army? Is the British army "no army worthy of the name"? Would General McNaughton say of it that it is "no army worthy of the name"? It is a conscript army. Why should a British conscript army be any better than a Canadian conscript army?

When the Americans joined the British in Africa to drive the Germans out, followed up to Sicily and to where they are now in Italy, will General McNaughton say of them that they are "no army worthy of the name"? The American army is a conscript army. Have the American armies in France shown themselves to be "no armies worthy of the name"? Would General Eisenhower say that of them?

What about the Russian armies, armies which fought so magnificently at Stalingrad, at Leningrad and in many other hard-fought battles in which they defeated and rolled back the Germans? Would General McNaughton say of them that they are "no armies worthy of the name"? They are all conscript armies, all the armies of these countries to which I have referred. Who in this world should sneer at them and say, as was said of the Canadian conscripts, that they would be "no army worthy of the name"? Why should a Canadian army called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act be "no army worthy of the name"? That is what the Minister of National Defence would say of them.

One matter of which this house has not been informed and of which this country has not been informed is as to why the present Minister of National Defence is in Canada at all and not with his men overseas, to use the Prime Minister's words of him, for this is how he described him, "He, the builder, the first commander of the Canadian army. I knew there was no man who had the interests of the army and the men overseas closer to his heart". If they are so close to his heart, why is he not over there with them? Not because of ill health. We had that from him; he announced it when he came home. You only have to look at him now to know he is in good health. If he

could not have carried on as supreme commander he, if they were "so close to his heart", might have stayed with them, have been with them where they are now on the battle front instead of leaving them to go into battle without him. He came home, was promoted after coming home, and on top of that he treats himself to a cabinet plum worth from $12,000 to, if he can be elected, say $16,000 a year.

That is not McNaughton the soldier, the idol of the army, the idol of Canada. That is McNaughton the politician, the fallen idol, the idol with feet of clay.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think it is desirable that Your Honour should hear what the hon. member is saying. May I say to him that if I have not interrupted him time and again in his references to General McNaughton it is because I have been considering the source from which his remarks are being made.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

I am quite willing to have the Prime Minister or anyone else in the world consider the source from which my words came, and I think the source will be found quite as reliable and quite as respectable as some other sources.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Who wrote it?

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

If General

McNaughton, as the Prime Minister said of him, really "had the interests of the army-"

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):

On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker-

Mr. BLACK (.Yukon):

"-and the men

overseas close to his heart-*"

It is not a commander's job to be in the front line.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

I am a member the same as you are, and am entitled to speak my mind.

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I have risen to a point of order, and I want to know whether the rules have been changed so that everyone can read his speech.

Mr. CASSELMAN:

This afternoon the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) read his.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member for Skeena has called attention to the fact that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) is reading his speech. I need not point out the rule that an hon. member may not read his speech.