Tell him you are reading someone else's.

War Effort-Government Policy

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

I must admit I made copious notes and I make frequent references to them. I am quite sure they would have just as much effect on the hon. member who has just objected if they were extemporaneous as if they were written; he probably would not understand them anyway.

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):

I may not understand the rules, but I have been told what the rules are.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

I am glad they are having some effect on somebody.

If General McNaughton really "had the interest of the army and the men overseas close to his heart-

Order.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

-and is such an ardent advocate and supporter of the system of voluntary enlistment-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. General McNaughton is not a member of the house and is therefore perhaps not entitled to the privileges of hon. members; yet the remark which the hon. gentleman has just made, that if General McNaughton had the interests of the soldiers at heart he would do certain things, is one which I do not think the hon. gentleman would care to address to General McNaughton in his present capacity. I hope therefore that the hon. gentleman will exercise moderation.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

Fish of one and flesh of the other.

What about Bracken?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

He is not a minister of the crown and never will be.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

One rule for one and another for another.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

Do I understand the Speaker to object to my making references to the present Minister of National Defence?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman perhaps did not hear what I said. What I said was that if General McNaughton, not being a member of the house, may not be entitled to the privileges that members enjoy, he is nevertheless a minister of the crown in charge of the department of defence, and I suggest to the hon. gentleman that in his references to him he should not impute motives which are neither friendly to General McNaughton nor such as would come in justice from the hon. gentleman.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

I regret if what I

have said, and my manner of speaking do not meet with your entire approval, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that if General McNaughton, having ceased to be a soldier and gone into politics, is going to be as thin-skinned as the remarks made here on his behalf to-night would indicate, he had better get out of politics. If the government wants volunteers, if the present Minister of National Defence wants volunteers-and I say that in all humility, not wishing to offend him-they are going about it in the wrong way. The government's policy, the minister's announced policy, his every -utterance, are all the greatest deterrent to voluntary enlistment that could oe devised, and I will show you why. What does voluntary enlistment now mean? What does it result in? It results in this. For every volunteer that comes forward one draftee remains safely at home; for every hundred volunteers one hundred draftees remain safely at home, while volunteers take on their duties. Could anyone say that is fair. This order in council, as I see it, is not fair even to the draftees because it does not take them all but picks out a few and leaves the rest. Under these conditions it is no wonder that the voluntary system has failed. Can young men be expected to volunteer under such conditions to take the place of draftees whom the government keeps at home? As I have said, and I have illustrated it to the house, the policy of the government and of its spokesman, the Minister of National Defence, tends in fact to wreck and to hamper the policy of voluntary enlistment. You could not make a stronger argument against it than they make themselves.

Instead of limiting it to 16,000 reinforcements to be sent over a period of months and months in the dim and distant future, and perhaps not all, if the present Minister of National Defence has his way, if the order in council had made all draftees liable for service where war is being fought, where they are needed and desperately needed, and where our fighting men are calling for them, then there would be an incentive to volunteer, but not under the policy of this government or the policy of the Minister of National Defence. The government could then have fairly said-, even at this late date, that its policy is that of maintaining a vigorous war effort. But surely the government does not expect the people of Canada to agree that its policy of sending a comparatively small number of draftees, in all possibly 16,000 over a period of time, when 60,000 are available now, is a policy of maintaining a vigorous war effort. Surely that does not add up.

War Effort-Government Policy

If the government will now replace that order in council, which limits the number of draftees who may be sent to the war to 16,000, with an order in council under which all draftees will forthwith be sent to reinforce the men in the firing lines, that would be a policy of maintaining a vigorous war effort, and I would support the government in that policy, but not in the present makeshift policy.

Mr. HUGUES LAPOINTE (Lotbiniere):

Before proceeding with this debate I should like to make one remark about some of the words which I heard expressed by the hon. member who has preceded me with reference to the Minister of National Defence.* Members may have different views as regards the policies of the government, but one thing on which I think everyone will agree is that a man who, like General McNaughton, has built up the Canadian Army and made it what it is now, should at least have a decent reception in this house. I understand that the hon. member and his family have a very nice war record. I say, sir, that makes it worse because, before being a politician himself, he was a soldier and as such he should have had the decency to watch his words.

I do not wish to prolong unnecessarily the debate on the motion before the house. However, I would feel lacking in my duty to those whom I represent here and I owe it to myself in all justice to explain, why I shall vote as I intend to do on this motion. It is not my inten-* tion to discuss here the relative value of conscription as opposed to the voluntary system of enlisting men for our army. Any arguments that I might expound or any facts that I might state before the house would be but a mere repetition of arguments and facts which are already known and which I have had occasion to express in previous debates. Furthermore I feel that it would only be discussing an issue which to all intents and purposes has already been decided. I believe that my views on this issue are well known and I have seen no reason yet to change them. I have always believed, and I am still of the opinion, that the voluntary system is the only practical system of recruiting an efficient army in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in this dominion. Suffice it to say that this system has not, as some hon. members would like us to believe, been a failure in this country. It has provided Canada with an army of great strength whose deeds will live forever in the most glorious pages of our national history. It has sent into the sky an air force which has done and is still doing all of its share in blasting from the skies the once feared German luftwaffe. It has sent across

the seas a navy which has now reached the third rank, after the British and the United States, among the navies of the united nations. Surely, Mr. Speaker, a system which has brought about such achievements cannot rightly be termed a failure. No, that system has not been a failure, and it can still bring about adequate results if certain individuals and responsible bodies in this country will use it for the purpose for which it was intended and not as an instrument to overthrow the King government.

However, the situation now is such that whatever may be the views of hon. members on this issue nothing can be changed. We are faced with an accomplished fact, and hon. members are now asked by this government to support it in the prosecution of a vigorous war effort. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself said that the vote on the motion which he presented could not be interpreted as a vote in favour of or against conscription for overseas service, or as an approval or disapproval of order in council P.C. 8891. However, I do recall that in 1942 when bill No. 80 was presented to the house the Prime Minister said, I believe, that when this government passed the order in council necessary to put into effect the powers granted 'to it by bill No. 80 hon. members would be given an opportunity to show either their approval or their disapproval of such an order. If we are to take the Prime Minister's words as regards the meaning of the present motion and reconcile them with the views he expressed in 1942 then, the present subamendment as I see it, after the subamendment presented by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) was declared out of order, is the only way any hon. member may have of expressing his views on or his approval of the order in council.

I was elected to this house for the first time in the general election of 1940. Speaking for myself alone, I wish to say that the only reason I received such support in the riding which I represent is that I was the official Liberal candidate. The people of Lotbiniere, like the other citizens throughout this country, had heard the solemn pledges which the leaders, not only of our party but of all parties represented here except, I believe, the New Democracy party as it was called at the time, had taken concerning the conscription issue. They believed the leaders of our party; they put_ their faith in them, and they elected me simply because I was following these men. They believed that the tradition of the Liberal party of which I was the candidate, and the doctrine which had

War Effort-Government Policy

always been preached, rightly or wrongly, was one of no conscription, and they elected me to follow that doctrine.

I wish to point out, Mr. .Speaker, that I was not the one to assume certain undertakings and in the name of the party to make pledges to the people. I simply followed in the footsteps set by my leaders, and by the leaders of the other parties, as I have already said. Now, I believe-I may have illusions in this connection-that I have attended as good a political school as any other hon. member in this house. I have always been taught that politics was not a game of diplomacy, but that it was the most serious task to which any man could devote his talent and ability, and that to represent one's fellow citizens in the House of Commons was possibly the greatest honour and privilege to be vested in any man. I was also taught that pledges and promises once given had to be kept. I repeat, I am speaking only for myself. I may have been politically unwise when I followed the lead given by the head of our party during the general election. It is possible that I should have anticipated that the crisis such as the one we are going through now would eventually result; but I do say this: personally I cannot go back on the word which I solemnly gave to the people whom I represent in this house, especially when I am not convinced that this order in council was necessary for the winning of the war and the security of Canada. Furthermore, as regards this point, I will not permit any man to doubt my sincerity or impute any political motives to my action. It is purely a question to be settled as between myself and my own conscience. It may be considered as a selfish attitude to take, but I would rather withdraw from public life than have it be said by any man who had placed his faith in me that I had failed to keep the word I had given.

One hon. member stated the other day, following a subamendment which was presented, and had conclusions similar to the present one, that if that amendment were adopted by the house it would be considered that we were deserting our boys overseas. I do not believe I am a deserter. I am not more of a deserter, anyway, than some hon. members who refused to give their full support to the policy of the voluntary system, when that policy was the only means of providing reinforcements for the men overseas. No one in the house knows more than I do what the boys at the front are going through. At the same time I do not believe that the sending over of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 N.R.M.A. personnel will change the situation. I do not believe that it will

relieve the pressure on the men now at the front, because that is not the way things take place. These men will be distributed all over the front. They will be swamped among other men who are already there. And, as the former minister of national defence for air rightly pointed out, there is not one commander, no matter of what level he may be, who will take out his experienced men and replace them with N.R.M.A. personnel, no matter how well trained they are. They will just fill in the gaps at times; and the same men who have been carrying the fight throughout will keep on plugging ahead. I know that, because I have seen it done. I do not know how it was done during the last war. I was not there; but I know the way it is done now.

I heard the hon. member for London (Mr. Johnston) praise the men of the infantry on the Italian front. All he said of the men on the Italian front is true of the men in northwestern Europe. They are the men who, supported by the air force, the artillery and the armoured corps, are winning the war. No amount of bombing or shelling can capture an objective. It takes men on their feet to go forward against fire, and to dig out the enemy from his defences. And that is what they are doing. It is exactly because of the very nature of the duty which an infantryman must perform that you need a man of determination, of character and of courage who will go forward under any conditions, in order to fill the ranks of the infantry.

I do not challenge the courage of any of the N.R.M.A. personnel, as other people are willing to do. There is no monopoly of courage on the battle front-although there seems to be some here in Canada. And on that point I should like to remark that the so-called zombies-which, incidentally, is a term I never heard until I returned to Canada-exist not only in the N.R.M.A. personnel. Every country has been blessed with them. You will find them in Canada. You will find them in this country in some of our services, under the disguise of general service men. You will find them in the United States. You will find them in England. It is the same the world over, I expect.

This debate and the campaign which has been carried on throughout this country, to some extent has had for its purpose playing on the sentiments and emotions of mothers, sisters and wives. I ask those people, and I ask hon. members in the house who may have sons in the infantry in the front line to-night: whom would they rather have to-night in a slit trench along the front line, fighting it out, possibly holding back a counter-attack under the most intense conditions; whom would

' War Effort-Government Policy

they rather have, the man who is there because he wanted to go there and who will stay there to fight it out and die, if necessary, or the man who is there simply because order in council P.C. 8891 was passed by this government?

I was interested the other day to read the comments of war correspondents who were writing about the reception our draftees might receive overseas. I recall that one of them seemed dubious about the manner in which the men at the front would receive them, while another one expressed the thought that the frontline soldiers would be glad to see them. I do hope that is the case. I have questioned members of the forces who served during the last war, and who were there in the front line when conscripts arrived. That is one of the reasons why I do hope this correspondent was right. But I must say I doubt that statement, and I doubt it as much as I doubted the statement made by certain commanding officers here in Canada to the effect that the draftees were eager to go overseas, and were just waiting for the government to assume its responsibility. Events of the last week proved that I had at least a pretty good reason to doubt those statements.

Another reason why I cannot agree on the change of policy is the consequences which I fear will result from that change. In my mind, what is even more important than the fact that possibly 15,000 Canadians will be sent to serve overseas, against their will, in spite of the pledges made by the government, is the fact that for a long time the people of Canada will have lost some of the faith they usually have in their public men. In my opinion the value of our parliamentary institutions is based upon the good faith which can exist between electors and the men they have chosen to represent them. I fear very much that as a result of this changed policy Canadians in all provinces will no longer have in our public men that confidence which I believe is so necessary in democratic institutions.

Irrespective of the complexity of the problem now facing us, the fact remains that one responsible party which, for many years, shaped the opinion of the majority of the people in this country, has brought into force an act which is absolutely contradictory to all its pledges and undertakings. It is not the judgment which the electors may pass now, at a time when the country is going through a period of mob hysteria, that is important; it is the judgment they will pass after the war i9 over, when they can analyze the facts in their true light, in an atmosphere of peace. I, for one, do not want to share in any way

the responsibility for a policy whose enactment by this government may in future undermine faith and confidence in public men. Certainly I do not want to criticize the Prime Minister unduly. I realize as well as any one, and better than some people, the situation in which he has been placed, and I should like to make my own the words pronounced in this house a few days ago by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard). I for one am convinced that no other man in this country could have governed and achieved the success the Prime Minister has achieved in the last five years. In this crisis he had the courage to remain at his post and to lead, at times alone, one of the most difficult, most extenuating and at times most pathetic battles in our parliamentary history. It is a tragedy that at this period of the war, when victory appears certain, he should find himself at such an impasse, and that he should be forced to adopt a policy which, rightly or wrongly, is creating in Canada a state of national disunity. The whole career of the Prime Minister has been consecrated to the edification of a truly Canadian nation. As the hon. member for Bellechasse well said, history will show that no one in this country will better deserve to be termed a nation builder.

I deeply regret that because of the wording of the motion now before the house I am not able to express to him the confidence I have in his ability to run this country during the difficult times through which we are passing. However, I do not see how I can vote with the government on the main motion, thereby expressing my confidence in the leadership the Prime Minister has given, since I cannot completely dissociate from the motion the order in, council which was passed two weeks ago and which is now part of our war policy. I believe I truly express the sentiments of the people whom I have the honour to represent here when I tell the Prime Minister that there is no one else whom they want to see as the head of the government of Canada, but on the other hand they cannot forget the breaking of a pledge which to them was sacred. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the task to which the Prime Minister has devoted his whole life, and the national unity which he succeeded in realizing in Canada, will not come to an end because of the present issue. I trust that, once the turmoil of this battle is ended, Canadians will realize at last that they should not be separated from one another, that they should not hate one another because of a mere political issue.

I returned to Canada not quite three weeks ago, and in closing I ask the indulgence of the

War Effort-Government Policy

house to let me tell of one incident which occurred while I was in France. Over there I served with the Regiment la Chaudiere. We were part of the eighth Canadian brigade, one of the assault brigades which landed at H-hour on D-day, June 6. The next morning, through the actions of the previous day and after counter-attacks during the night, I found that I had lost more than half of my company. I reported that fact to my battalion headquarters and asked that reinforcements should be sent to me immediately. It happened that on the previous day the craft which was bringing our reinforcements had been sunk, and the reinforcements had not arrived; but I did get reinforcements that same afternoon. And the men who came to reinforce a company of the Regiment la Chaudiere were men from the Queen's Own Rifles of Toronto, men from the Regina Rifles, men from the North Shore Regiment of New Brunswick; and they were glad and proud to do so. That night, while certain unpleasant things were going on, I was thinking to myself, "I wonder how many people in Canada would believe such a thing could be true."

There were no differences of race or creed on the beaches of Normandy on D-day when a tank unit from Winnipeg supported an infantry unit from Quebec. There was no national disunity on the airfield of Carpiquet, when men from the North Shore Regiment of New Brunswick and men from the Chaudiere Regiment of Quebec fought side by side, supporting each other. There was no national disunity on the hills of Falaise, when boys from Montreal and boys from the west went forward together against the common foe. There was no national disunity on the cliffs of Calais and Boulogne when men from Toronto and men from the lower St. Lawrence fought together and pushed jerry back into the sea. Surely if the men at the front can achieve this national unity and attain this spirit of brotherhood the people back in Canada, and especially hon. members of this house, can fight the war on the home front following the example set for them by our Canadian forces overseas.

I regret to have detained the house for so long, Mr. Speaker, but I am at my last point. I would go as far as to say that in my opinion, and I believe on this point I represent the opinion of many of the men overseas, if here in Canada we cannot achieve a community of spirit; if we cannot learn to understand one another better, then the hardships, the miseries and the losses we shall have suffered during this war may well have been in vain.

iMr. H. Lapointe.]

Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of complimenting the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lapointe, Lotbiniere). His address for the past half hour has been like a breath of fresh air in this chamber after most of the stuff to which we have listened to-day.

I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not and is not the intention of the members of this group to occupy very much of the time of the house in discussing the subject now before us. We came to this session with the realization that the members of the House- of Commons had been convened to discuss a matter of urgent public importance in which all of the people of Canada were vitally interested, and like most of the other members of the house we came here with very little knowledge of the actual facts in the controversy between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as it appeared, and the former minister of national defence (Mr. Ralston).

In the time at my disposal this evening I shall try to place my own views on this matter before the house. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) made a clear and concise statement of the position of this group and then went on to move an amendment which in our opinion, if acted upon, would be the only real solution of this problem. Indeed, had that been the policy since 1939, and were it the policy now, I am reasonably sure that the members of the house would not be here discussing this matter at this time.

Let me say at the outset that the people of my own constituency are interested in this matter purely from the national point of view. There is no conscription problem in that end of the country because, when you attain the age of eighteen years on Cape Breton island, if you do not go into the service you simply do not eat. There is no employment there; there was none when the war broke out; there is still no employment for those leaving school and very little for those who are returning from this war. I say that because it is not a constituency problem. Everyone who is eligible for the service is either in the service or he is frozen to his job in an essential war industry if employed.

When we left to come to this session of the house our conception was that the issue was not conscription but immediate reinforcements for our armies in action on the different battle fronts. My mind was made up before coming to the house that what

War Effort-Government Policy

I would have to guard against was becoming inveigled by political catchwords and slogans by those who were seeking to make political capital out of an unfortunate situation. I say that for this reason. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar indicated, it was my privilege to pay a short visit with him and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) to England, France and Belgium in September and October of this year. When I left England to return to Canada I came back with certain definite impressions, and perhaps the first was that, the people of the north American continent little realize how fortunate we are to be living on this side of the world, free from all the miseries, hardships, confusion and the uncertain future facing those on the other side of the Atlantic.

My second impression was that Canada had in the field, in the air, and at sea, armed services that were second to none in the world. I came back very proud indeed of our boys in northern Europe and in the air force and our navy personnel. I think that in the European theatre of war they have done perhaps one of the best jobs that has been done by any army in that field.

My third impression was that in Europe the toughest fighting, and the heaviest casualties, I believe, are still to come. The allied armies on the Rhine facing the Siegfried line are up against a system of fortifications three hundred miles in length and about thirty miles in depth, constituting the greatest fortifications the world has ever seen, and those fortifications are manned by a fanatical army that has been taught nothing but to hate and kill. That is what our boys are facing.

When this issue of reinforcements was raised I found it hard to understand because, during the entire period that we were in England, where we met with Canadian army personnel both at the top and the bottom, I never heard one word about a shortage of reinforcements, with one exception. I did meet boys back from Italy who said that in that country the reinforcement problem was somewhat tense and had been for a year past. But with that exception we heard nothing in England about a shortage of reinforcements.

We had the experience in Belgium and France of spending a night with those responsible for the routing of reinforcements to the line units, and again there was no intimation of a shortage. We spent a short period at staff headquarters where, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar indicated, the direct question was asked of one who had the responsibility of directing the army reinforcement situation at that time, and his answer was that

the situation was quite satisfactory. That was on the 2nd of October. We spent part of an afternoon in the forward reinforcement camp. I wrnuld not hazard a guess as to how many men were in that camp, but it was quite a large number, and again we heard nothing about reinforcements.

Coming back to the French coast we spent a night and part of a morning in the reserve reinforcement depot there, where there were quite a large number of men in the camp. We also spent a little time on the beaches with those who were in charge of the camp. Everything else was talked about but reinforcements. There was no indication given of any shortage. So that, Mr. Speaker, when I came to this house I say that I came here with my mind made up because of that experience on our visit to England, France and Belgium, meeting those in the field who were directly responsible for reinforcements, to analyse the situation as it was placed before us in the house. I could not understand the agitation in the press; it did not make sense to me. My reaction to most of the stuff which appeared in the newspapers was that someone for political reasons was endeavouring to raise an issue which was not nearly as tense, based on my experience, as the propaganda would indicate.

On coming to the house we find that two ministers have resigned from the government, and for opposite reasons: the former minister of national defence, because he had made a recommendation that the N.R.M.A. army should be conscripted for overseas service; the former minister of national defence for air, because the government had passed an order in council implementing, at least partly, conscription. That- is rather confusing to the Canadian people.

On the matter of resignations, my impression is that to resign from the cabinet at a time like this is not a solution. While the exminister of national defence, perhaps under the stress of circumstances at that time, felt inclined or obliged to take the stand that he did in order to forms attention on the matter, I personally do not think it is the action which should have been taken. I believe that had the then minister of national defence stuck to his guns, remained in the cabinet, asked for a session of the house and placed the matter before it, he would have been supported in the action which he advocated at that time. The fact of the matter as I see it is that the action taken by the government under order in council P.C. 8891 is the action which he recommended at that time. But it is rather confusing to the people of Canada, and more so, I

War Effort-Government Policy

think, to service personnel overseas, to find that kind of situation here. It is an indication that the issues at stake in this war are not fully appreciated by people who have a distinct and direct responsibility. However, it was* of course, the prerogative of the men who took that action so to do.

I could not quite follow the former minister of national defence when he spoke about the responsibility for the situation in which we now find ourselves. He made an excellent speech, a factual speech; but there is one point which is not clear in my mind. He admitted at that time that there was a telegram from General Crerar to General Stuart. General Stuart was then in the city of Ottawa. That telegram was sent on August 26. General Crerar's telegram indicated that there was a shortage of reinforcements at that time.

Mr. RALSTON:

No. My hon. friend is quite mistaken. The telegram which I referred to was a telegram from General Stuart at Canadian military headquarters to General Murchie here. He is mixing this up with another telegram which was mentioned at another session when he speaks of the General Crerar telegram.

Mr. GILLIS:

I may be mixed up in the generals.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

And the war. Generally mixed up.

"Mr. GILLIS: There are very few in this house who are not mixed up-that is my impression-of course with the exception of myself! The fact of the matter is that there was a telegram in August which indicated that there was need for reinforcements. I am not blaming the ex-minister of national defence for this, but what I am saying is that there is something wrong somewhere in the Department of National Defence, or this matter would not be in the condition it is. The "alibi" is that there is a shortage of reinforcements, but we are remustering over in England, and We think we can take care of the situation. I say nothing against defence officers in the field; I think we have as capable .a general staff directing the fighting forces in France and Belgium as you will find in any part of the world; but any defence official in England, responsible for seeing that these reinforcement pools were kept up, with the situation as it was in France and Belgium at that time, when our arm)' was constantly in action, as it was also constantly in action in Italy, who thought he could keep his reinforcement pools built up by remustering other service personnel in England was very shortsighted, to say the least. In my opinion the

person who made that decision is at least partly responsible for the situation in which we now find ourselves. Th-at was in August. Consequently, I think, the former minister of national defence has a grievance-at least I would have if I were in his place-against someone in the defence department. If I had to leave Ottawa and make a trip personally to Italy, France and Belgium in order to see for myself exactly what the situation was, and found when I got there that the situation was perhaps 100 per cent more serious than was indicated to me by my officials in England whom I depended on, I would feel I had a grievance against that particular department and 'I would want to see it straightened out. That is why I say that the former minister of national defence, who in my opinion was not responsible for the situation but was let down by someone, should not have resigned from the cabinet but should have remained in it and cleaned up the department, because something is wrong somewhere there.