February 13, 1942

SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. QUELCH:

If the minister had not interrupted me I would have gone on to say that I am not advocating the press-gang. But will the minister say that the prestige of the British navy was not as high when they utilized that method as it has ever been since?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Graeme Slaght

Liberal

Mr. SLAGHT:

Certainly not.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. QUELCH:

When he says, "We can't use conscription, we can't force people on ships," I am merely pointing out that in the past we forced men to go on ships, and they were the finest sailors the world has ever seen.

Again, is the Minister of Agriculture right when he says that the present system is a voluntary system? I maintain that the present system is one of the most undesirable forms of compulsion you can possibly have; it is not voluntary at all.

When the four months' training plan was brought into operation, I happened to meet a recruiting officer one day, and I asked him this question: "Do you believe we can get enough men for overseas service?" He replied, "Well, under the one-month training

The Address-Mr. Quelch

plan we could not do it, but now we have those men for four months we shall be able to bring enough pressure to bear upon them to bring them into the active service." Of course, that "pressure" is compulsion. Let me give an example. A mechanized convoy comes to a .small village. In the evening a dance is put on, and while the boys and girls are dancing a spotlight is turned upon different couples, and a man fiom the stage calls out to the girls dancing with these men, "Are you not ashamed to be seen dancing with a man who is not in uniform?" I say that if the government cannot get the men they need on a straight voluntary system, without adopting despicable methods of that kind, it would be far better to have conscription. In the olden days we persuaded men to make statements by putting them in a torture chamber. To-day we are persuading men to go into the army by means of a form of mental torture.

Again, let us remember this-I know some hon. members may object to the statement, but they cannot deny it is perfectly true- that in the early days of the war many men were forced into the army not through a sense of patriotism but because of the economic condition in which they found themselves. Let us keep that well in mind. Where that happens it is not going to help to improve the morale or esprit de corps of the army.

I am not criticizing the government for holding a plebiscite. Definite commitments were made, and when they are made they should be honoured. But it is rather strange that suddenly, at this point, the conscience of the Prime Minister should prick him. It has not done so in the past. The promises which he made in 1935 never worried .him, although they were never kept; but to-day all of a sudden he has decided that promises should be kept. While I say that I am not over-critical of the government for taking a plebiscite, on the other hand I am very critical of the government for having placed itself in a position where it requires a plebis-' cite to extricate it. If the Prime Minister had shown during the last election a little more interest in the welfare of the people and a little less interest in the welfare of the Liberal party, that promise need never have been given.

Most people will agree that to-day our most urgent need is machines and more machines. Military men admit that frankly. We were told last year by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) that we were rapidly approaching peak production due to the fact that we had a shortage of skilled' labour.

Again I say that if we had instituted, upon the declaration of war, complete mobilization of the resources of this nation we would not have been faced with that critical situation.

I want now to refer to a statement which was made by a witness before the members of the special committee on pensions. When we sat last year we had Mr. A. W. Crawford, member of the interdepartmental committee on youth training, as a witness, and in his evidence he admitted quite frankly that there were a large number of men trying to get in the training schools for whom they had not the capacity. When he was asked why we could not increase the capacity of these schools in order to train men more rapidly, his answer was that even if they were trained we could not find jobs for them. When he was reminded of the statement made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply that we were reaching maximum production because we had not the skilled labour, he explained that the type of training given to these men does not sufficiently equip them to take their places in skilled industry. Then it was drawn to the attention of Mr. Crawford that in the United States there are a number of advanced training schools which make it possible for men, when they are through with their course, immediately to take their places in industry. Mr. Crawford admitted that we had no schools of that kind in this country, and that they were very costly to install. In view of the fact that we have been told by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence that no financial restrictions shall be allowed to impede our war effort, it is hard to understand why schools of that sort have not been put into operation long ago, if the main objection is the cost of installing them.

There is something else that is impeding our war effort, and it is this. A large number of men in Canada to-day are engaged in nonessential industries. Perhaps the most flagrant example is to be found in the gold mining industry. According to the bureau of statistics there are engaged in that industry in Canada at the present time between 32,000 and 33,000 men. These men are largely skilled mechanics and miners, but to-day they are not making any contribution whatsoever to the war effort of the British empire and the United States. They are not helping in one single degree. The point may be made that this gold is used for the purpose of bringing supplies from the United States to Canada; but of how much use is that gold to the United States when they get it? Here we have 32,000 men busily engaged in digging gold out of a hole in the ground and transporting it across the line where it is buried in a

hole on the other side. How much is the war effort either of the United States or of the British empire advanced by that process? How much greater would the war effort be, both of the United States and of this country, if these men were engaged in war industries? If the United States desired this gold, we could come to an agreement with them to turn over to them, to hypothecate to the United States the total production of the gold of Canada after the war for so many years. Surely gold is just as safe in the ground on this side of the line as it is in the ground on the other side.

It is unfortunate perhaps that we have in this country at the head of affairs a number of men who still worship at the shrine of gold. Let me quote what Lord Sempill said in the House of Lords on November 18, 1941:

Ten years ago we regarded it as axiomatic that gold gave value to money, and that money would immediately become worthless if it had not got an adequate gold backing. Yet within the space of these ten years the roles have been reversed, and if anyone is suspected of cherishing a theory now, which has been so comprehensively and thoroughly disproved by fact, he is labelled a "museum piece" or a "gold bug."

Commenting on that statement, I suggest it is unfortunate that we have had in the past and still have a number of these museum pieces on the treasury benches-a number of people with the gold-bug mentality, who are willing to sacrifice the work of thousands of men in the production of gold when these men are needed in our war effort. I would again point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that so long as such things are going on in this country it is useless for him tp get up and try to persuade us that we have an all-out war effort.

I might refer to the question of agriculture and the chaotic condition of the industry in western Canada as it relates to the grain grower. There are many boys enlisting who are needed on the farms. In my opinion if we had proper mobilization of man-power we would keep these boys on the farms; they would not go into the army. There are men in non-essential industries that should not be working at their present jobs but somewhere else; they should be doing work which is necessary in our war effort. That would be a form of selective service. I know of many boys who were supposed to be able to get a postponement but were not granted it and were called up. Now they are in the service and cannot obtain leave of absence. Their parents are too old to carry on the work themselves and the result is that they have to sell their stock, which is valuable and is needed in the country. They have to sell valuable breeding

The Address-Mr. Quelch

stock and that is a loss to the country. This stock is being sold to the packing plants.

Another aspect of the war effort which I have not heard mentioned very much up to the present time is the question of morale. I have heard a number of people in Canada criticizing Canadians in different parts of the country for not being enthusiastically behind the war effort-at any rate, not as enthusiastically as they should be. I think we can all agree that, unfortunately, in many parts of Canada there is not a very great amount of enthusiasm behind the war effort to-day. But where these people generally make their mistake is in criticizing the wrong people, instead of placing the blame where it rightfully belongs, on the shoulders of the government. Let me explain what I mean.

In the period from 1935 to 1939 we continually urged upon the government the fact that people throughout the country deserved and should be given a better and a higher standard of living. We emphasized the fact that the people were not able to find work because there was not enough money being put into circulation. We urged time and again that everything possible should be done to make the people throughout Canada happy and contented, because when you have a happy, contented people, they are willing to fight for the maintenance of the conditions that make for that happiness and contentment. We know, however, that during that period the government refused to spend the amount of money necessary to put Canadians to work, and therefore conditions from 1935 to 1939 were very unsatisfactory. We allowed the productive resources of the country to be systematically sabotaged. There were half a million people unemployed, a million people on relief, and many industries running at only a part of their capacity. What a contrast, one may say, between that condition and the conditions in Russia to-day. There you have a united nation fighting for what they believe to be a real democracy. They do not have to depend upon promises with regard to the future. They can look back on the past twenty years and go forward reassured that everything possible will be done to improve the conditions of the masses. If the people in charge of our policies had been paid servants of Germany during the period from 1935 to 1939 they could not very well have put into operation a policy that would have been of greater advantage to the German nation.

What has been the consequence? To what extent has the health of the soldiers and of the people of Canada been undermined? Let me quote from The Soldier magazine of

The Address-Mr. Quelch

November, on page 10. There is an article headed, "Fat in war, thin in peace." It reads in part:

A prominent Canadian, General Leo Lafleche, tells how thousands of young Canadians are unfit to fight. They cannot pass the army doctors. Medical authorities point to depression years and the hordes of these transients herded from province to province in the ten years before 1929. Enforced bumming and near starvation was rampant in this great new land of peace, promise and plenty, xouth took to rod-riding and it is to their everlasting credit that they behaved themselves. Mr. Bennett built concentration camps for Canadas young manhood. Mr. King said, "Re-elect me and 111 abolish Bennett's camps." It was an election promise kept by Mr. King, but it took another *world war to absorb the population of the now empty camps. Nazi forces of evil and destruction loomed up. Another world war. Canada s youthful transients were fattened for the fight.

Fat in war: thin in peace.

1 ask, will that type of policy build1 up the morale of the Canadian people?

Last year I read in a Canadian magazine an account of how a young man had evaded a draft. He was called up before the judge and asked if he had anything to say, and he replied that he did not think Canada was worth fighting for. Then the writer of the article went on to say what a wonderful and wealthy country Canada was-surely a country well worth fighting for. The point that writer entirely missed was that that boy was probably one of those who came out of college in 1930 and for nine or ten years was not able to find a place in the industrial life of this country. Probably his parents were on relief, his brothers and sisters unable to get proper medical attention or nourishment. Could you expect that boy to be enthusiastic about fighting for the continuation of such a condition? I have spoken to men of the armed forces on the train and I find a similar strain running through the conversation of these men. Invariably the comment was this: We have a dirty job to do and we are going to do it, but when the war is over we are going to demand something better than we have had in the past. I believe that if these men do not get a chance of something better in the future than they have had in the past, there will be serious trouble in this country.

I remember when I was in France during the last war listening to a speech by a prime minister of this country. He told us Canada was grateful for what her rtten were doing, and he promised that nothing would be too good for us; our dependents would be looked after and every man guaranteed a job. Was that promise kept?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. QUELCH:

Reference was made to that question by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) the other day. Let me read what he said, as reported at page 4143 of Hansard of November 6, 1941:

Therefore it behooves us, or any government that takes its duties seriously, to see to it that these men do not return from overseas with the same sense of disappointment, disillusionment and discontent as did the men who returned from the last war.

Well, we are now hearing statements by the Prime Minister to the effect that after this war there will be a new heaven and a new earth. I am satisfied that if in the future we continue the same type of policies that we have had in this country in the past, instead of there being a new heaven and a new earth for these men there will be a new hell. If the Prime Minister is really sincere in his talk about a new heaven and a new earth, why does he not take steps now to let the people have a glimpse of this new heaven? I think it was the Prime Minister himself who stated that unless this new order is well on its way before the end of the war we may look for it in vain. Now is the time to try to set up this new order, instead of waiting until the end of the war.

Let me give a few examples of what could be done in order to help regain the confidence of the people of this country. For instance, old age pensions have been mentioned in this debate. The amount of the old age pension could be increased from $20 to $30 a month so that any province wishing to increase their contribution could take advantage of it. Also, the age should be reduced from seventy to sixty-five. _

Then we have the question of pensions for widows of disability pensioners. The parliamentary special committee on the ^ Pension Act last year spent a great deal of time considering that question, and in our fourth report we made this recommendation: that

after further and more complete exploration of the problems involved, consideration be given to the advisability of extending the provisions of the War Veterans' Act to (a) widows of disability pensioners not now provided for; (b) widows of deceased recipients of war veterans' allowance.

The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has stated that no legislation will be introduced this session to take care of these people. But surely we realize that these people are a direct responsibility of the department of pensions. The minister has tried to say that these people should be dealt with under social legislation. But let us remember that when a soldier

The Address-Mr. Quelch

marries, the amount of his pension is increased; by increasing the amount of the pension we recognize a very direct responsibility for that woman. Again when a soldier marries and later is given a war veterans' allowance, the amount of the allowance is increased from $20 to $40 a month. Thereby we recognize responsibility for that woman. Yet strangely enough, if that man dies we automatically cut off the allowance to the woman.

Another point is regarding the dependents' allowance regulations. In March, 1941, order in council 138/1936 was passed which destroyed one of the principles of the regulations regarding dependents' allowances. A department of government, the soldier settlement board, is allowed to attach or seize a certain portion of the dependents' allowance to pay off a soldier settler's debt. This action has been criticized by various soldier organizations. This order in council should be rescinded.

Another thing I want to refer to is the question of the subamendment. If it were possible to move an amendment to the subamendment I would do so, owing to the fact that it is open to misinterpretation. But under the rules of the house this may not be done; therefore the subamendment will have to be either accepted in its present form or rejected. The subamendment requests that- the forthcoming plebiscite should seek the support of the people of Canada for the complete and effective conscription of war industries, accumulated -wealth and financial institutions, at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the suggested extension of the conscription of man-power.

Various interpretations, or perhaps I should say misinterpretations, have been offered in this house regarding that subamendment. But on page 55 of Hansard of January 26 last the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group explained exactly what the group means by that subamendment. On behalf of this group I will say that we will support the subamendment on the basis of the explanation given by the acting leader of the C.C.F., with the exception of paragraph 1 and paragraph 6 of his explanation, in respect to which we will take the alternatives presented by the C.C.F. group.

Before commenting upon this explanation I have one or two observations to make. First I should like to compliment the C.C.F. upon their present stand. I might point out that it is very similar to the stand we took in September, 1939, and have maintained consistently ever since. On the other hand it is quite a broadening out of the stand they took at that time. To show the consistency of this group as between 1939 and the present day I want 44561-374

to quote what I said on the appropriation bill on behalf of the group as reported on page 99 of Hansard:

When a country engages in war it becomes engaged in a life and death struggle, and it therefore becomes essential that it organize on as effective a basis as possible. Otherwise unnecessary loss of life and great hardship are bound to result. That is why the group to which I belong has taken a stand in favour of the conscription of finance, industry and manpower. By such means we believe we can avoid the injustices and inequalities which existed during the last war. By such means we believe we may develop the resources of this nation to their full capacities, so that we may be enabled to make a maximum contribution, without increasing the debt of the nation by a single dollar. In other words we advocate a policy of pay-as-you-go. . . .

We believe in utilizing the Bank of Canada so that we may create the necessary financial credits and currency, combined with definite price regulation so as to obviate any serious rise in prices. We would advocate, further, steeply graded income and profits taxes. We maintain, further, that the only possible justification for borrowing is when our need for goods is greater than our ability to produce them. That condition of course requires external borrowing. We see absolutely no justification for internal borrowing.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

What date was that?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. QUELCH:

That was on September 11, 1939, during the discussion of the war appropriation bill.

Now I come to the C.C.F. subamendment, and the explanation of that amendment as given by the leader of that group, appearing at pages 56 and 57 of Hansard for this session:

1. The national ownership or, at least, control of all our war industries to produce everything we require to maintain civilian health and morale and to provide our fighting forces with adequate equipment.

We are completely in accord with those last words, referring to control. With regard to the question of national ownership, I would say that wherever the government puts up the money to build an industry, we believe that industry should be owned and operated by the government. On the other hand, where you have industries already set up using only a small portion of their plants for the purpose of manufacturing war supplies, we do not think it would be advisable to have nationalization and in such cases would advocate control.

2. An integrated production plan which utilizes every plant and facility in its proper place without regard to the demands of big corporations and trusts.

We agree with that.

3. A complete reversal of the present dollar-a-year-men control policy and the substitution of proportionate representatives of organized

The Address-Mr. Quelch

farmer and labour bodies on all control agencies, so that the pressure of big business could be effectively curbed and democratic direction of the war effort achieved.

We agree to that.

4. Direct national control of all our financial institutions so that without inflation and without unnecessary future burdens of debt, we can finance our national effort.

We are altogether in accord with that. I like the way it is worded, but perhaps I might add a word of explanation. We realize that you cannot tax the total income away from an individual, that you must leave him enough in the first place to maintain a fair standard of living and at the same time put aside a little for a rainy day. This has been emphasized time and again by the Minister of Finance. So we say that to the extent that taxation and the sale of interest-free war savings certificates fail to meet government expenditures, the services of the Bank of Canada should be utilized.

5. There must be, at least, a one hundred per cent excess profits tax and, indeed, on all profits a low maximum rate should be set and the excess taken by the government for our war effort.

We agree to that.

6. The present loan policy should be replaced by one of compulsory, interest free loans imposed on the accumulated wealth of rich individuals and corporations, and based on ability to contribute. Indeed, the fairest method would be to establish a fair maximum income for all and to tax back to the country every dollar above that maximum.

So far as this paragraph is concerned, we are heartily in accord with the portion commencing with the words, "Indeed, the fairest method." Perhaps I might quote from what I said on the appropriation bill of 1939, to show the similarity of our stand then, as it appears at page 99 of Hansard for September 11, 1939:

In time of war it becomes necessary to call upon certain people to make that supreme sacrifice. It is necessary for others to suffer mutilation of the body. Is it asking too much to ask people remaining in Canada, in comparative safety, to be willing to sacrifice the major portions of their incomes? Is that asking too much, at a time when we are asking other people to sacrifice their lives? I say we have every right to demand that those who remain in safety be prepared to sacrifice the major portion of their incomes, that they be permitted to retain only that portion which is necessary for the maintenance of a moderate standard of living.

That is why I say we are heartily in accord with the latter part of this paragraph. No doubt some people will say that our policy to-day shows a considerable change from our policy before the war. Of course it does, because in war time we do not advocate

*business as usual. We have always held that in peace time the production of the country should be maintained at a level sufficiently high to satisfy the requirements of the Canadian people and to make that production available to the people throughout the country. But in war time, on the other hand, we maintain that the production of the country must be kept at its maximum level in order to make the greatest possible contribution to our war effort. Therefore the people should be satisfied with a moderate standard of living, a standard that will ensure their health and efficiency. And in order that the people shall not have a higher standard of living than that, we have consistently advocated increased taxation during time of war.

Coming back to agriculture, we feel that the government should give every consideration to the just demands of agriculture. We feel it is high time for the government to introduce an agricultural policy based upon the recommendations of the various farm organizations, instead of showing, as they have in the past, a contemptuous disregard for those bodies. When we compare the treatment of the farmers in the United States under the AAA with the treatment which has been accorded the farmers of this country, we must agree that any such comparison is odious so far as this country is concerned.

There will be plenty of time later on to discuss agricultural policies, so I can leave this question, only mentioning that we in this group have urged, as to-day we are urging by resolutions on the* order paper, that SI per bushel should be paid the farmer at point of shipment, on a quota designated by the wheat *board, and that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be amended so that it might constitute a sound crop insurance scheme.

By their actions now the government should do everything in their power to convince the people that when victory has been won there will be no danger of a return to the deplorable conditions that existed prior to the declaration of war. Only in this way can we inspire in the people the will to win. Only by such means can we hope to build up the morale of the people, so that they will be glad to endure any and every sacrifice required of them, whether it be in Canada or beyond the seas.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Chisholm Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. W. C. MACDONALD (Halifax):

5S6

The Address-Mr. Leader

Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la

Prairie): My first word will be one of congratulation to you, Mr. Speaker, upon the magnificent fortitude you have exhibited in sitting in the chair with so much dignity for so many weeks listening to the different orations and observing this house of democracy in action. It has occurred to me in recent days that the thought must have been running through your head, "0 Lord, how long"? Nevertheless I am sure that you would expect me to have something to say in a debate of this nature. I feel that it is my duty as representative of my constituency to offer my contribution. I know that my constituents will expect it, and therefore I am going to express my viewpoint as I see it.

Now, the vital question, stripped of all the fancy words and phrases and camouflage, is simply conscription. Do you want conscription in Canada, and for overseas service? So I am using the word conscription, the old-fashioned word which to me is plain English. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) tells us, and many others in the house, that a solemn pledge was given, before, during and subsequent to the last election, that this government would never impose conscription for overseas service without submitting the question to the electorate. They regard that as a solemn promise, and I respect it.

Speaking for myself, I want to say that conscription was not an issue in my constituency. I believe I was asked once during the campaign what I thought of conscription, and my answer was that it was not an issue in the campaign but that personally I believed it was the only fair way to conduct a total war. I believe that conscription should mean equality of sacrifice and that each of us must be put in his proper place for the work which he is best fitted to do. I believe there are in Canada men in industry, key men, if you will, who could render far better service here in Canada than they ever could on the battlefield; and speaking of my own occupation or profession, I know there are many good farmers leaving Canada who could serve their country better if they remained on the farm and produced the food that will be required before the war is over.

I too must be careful of my promises. I spoke in this house in 1937-and I wonder how many hon. members had mentioned conscription as far back as that. The occasion was when the defence estimates were going through the house, and I took the opportunity then, in supporting the increase in the defence estimates, to submit to the house a resolution that had been passed by the United Farmers of Manitoba about a month before the house convened. I attended the convention and

fMr. W. C. Macdonald.]

the resolution was passed unanimously, calling attention to the fact that a war was in the offing and that if this country was going to war it should conscript man-power, wealth and all resources we have in Canada, for the successful prosecution of the war and for victory. I submitted to the house that resolution, which I supported. I wish to quote the words I used on that occasion. I do this for the simple reason that I made a statement in this house and I have not changed my viewpoint. I said, at page 994 of Hansard of February IS, 1937:

The Canadian people expect that if wre must go to war all the resources of the country will be employed in the prosecution of that war. I believe that in the nation's interest we should conscript . . . the resources of the fields, of the forests, and of the mines and all the

accumulated wealth.

I had hoped that this question would be settled differently. We do not take conscription so seriously out on the plains in western Canada as they do for instance in theprovince of Quebec, and I respect theiropinions. I felt that if we were to have

conscription-I believed it was coming and I think we should have had it immediately after Hong Kong-the Prime Minister should have asked the house, if he wished to be released from his promise. He should have asked the representatives of the people to release him. I for my part am willing to take my medicine and I would have spoken for my constituency of Portage la Prairie. Instead of that we have what we call a political football. I had hoped that the question of conscription would escape the turmoil of party politics. I believed that the Prime Minister, with his knowledge of the situation, and the need for vigorous and aggressive action, would have accepted the responsibility or else allowed the house to decide the issue. Now the initiative has been taken by the politicians, with results, I fear,, detrimental to Canada.

The word "appeasement" has been used in this house. Mr. Speaker, it is a horrible word when applied to our dealings with the axis powers; but appeasement for the sake of harmony at home is a beautiful word. Nothing should concern us more than to have unity in this country of ours, and I say that a prime necessity of our war effort is to maintain unity at home. That should not be a difficult task, when all that is best in our national life is threatened from without. Let me testify, in the name of my French-Cana-dian constituents, that I regard them as among my very best friends, loyal to the core. I have found the French-Canadians in my riding just as kind, just as industrious,

The Address-Mr. Leader

just as intelligent and law-abiding as my English-speaking friends. But there is prejudice on both sides, that we all must admit; and it is founded upon suspicion and imaginary grievances exploited to the full by unscrupulous politicians and their backers. It is my opinion that these barriers that have separated the French- and the English-speaking people in Canada could all be removed by tolerance and cooperation founded upon mutual trust. I wonder when we are going to learn that lesson.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

John Ritchie MacNicol

National Government

Mr. MacNICOL:

As soon as we drop politics.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. LEADER:

I believe that is true. When our leading public men in all parts of the dominion, when our religious bodies, both Protestant and Catholic, learn this fundamental truth, these leaders of public opinion will earn a nation's respect and gratitude.

Now I want to say something about our Prime Minister. I have often quoted him in this house, and am always glad to pay him a tribute of the respect in which I believe he is held by the people of this dominion. I do not believe there is a man in Canada, perhaps never has been in the public life of this country, who has striven more for unity than our present Prime Minister. In 1936, when I supported the trade treaty which he had made with the United States, I stated that it was more than a commercial treaty, that it was the extending of the hand of fellowship to a neighbour who is our kin. In 1939, when that treaty was renewed and we brought Great Britain into the picture, I said that when the history of our time was written no one would stand higher than our own Prime Minister. I appreciated those trade treaties, and let me say from my own experience that when I deal with my customers I hope to make them my friends; if you make a friend of your customer you are going to have a better deal every time.

During the last election I did not base my campaign very much on the government's policy and what they had done, but I told the people this, that in Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Lapointe we had two of Canada's greatest statesmen, two men who had done more to bring unity to Canada than any others that I could think of; I am satisfied that that statement is true. In unity there is strength. Great Britain and the United States are working in cooperation-by the way, they have conscription in both countries-and Canada cannot fail them.

It is my opinion that if we must have conscription-and I think it is coming if this war continues-we should have conscription wherever our interests are threatened. Are 44561-38}

they not threatened in the motherland, that has nurtured this nation and is guarding its future? Are our interests not threatened in Africa, where a sister nation battles for her freedom; in Australia, where a sister nation battles for the livelihood-yes, the very life- of the white race? Are they not threatened in Hong Kong? Did not 2,000 gallant Canadians go to Hong Kong and offer the sacrifice of their lives, troops from the east and troops from the west, English-speaking and Frenchspeaking? We should never forget Hong Kong, and I believe we are bound to go and avenge the sacrifice that these grand soldiers made for us.

And what about the United States, the most powerful ally of all, whose president declared that if Canada was attacked they would not stand idly by? That promise was made two or three years ago at Ivy Lea. Are we going to fall down in any particular in standing beside the mother country and the United States of America? We should not, and I do not think we shall. What an inspiration it should be to us when we think of that great British statesman Winston Churchill in his challenge to the nazis when he said: "If this country is invaded we shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the ocean, we shall fight on the beaches and in the streets and in the fields, and if we must we will fight from the dominions overseas." Are we worthy of that glorious ancestry? I say, let us unite with the forces of freedom everywhere and let us forget domestic discord. If we lose this war we lose everything.

I have heard it said in this house that this war is a result of broken promises. I presume there is truth in that statement, but I think that the cause of this war is commercial and industrial rivalry, greed for power and search for the almighty dollar. When you have men in high places imbued with that spirit, and when they are running this country or any other country, what can you expect?

I have a clipping here which I found in my desk the other day. It refers to ex-prime minister Baldwin of Great Britain, and I should like to quote it. It is from a speech by Stanley Baldwin on November 12, 1936. The heading is "A Famous Confession." It says:

My position as leader of a great party was not altogether a comfortable one. I asked myself what chance was there that in the next year or two the country would give a mandate for rearmament? Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and we must rearm, does anyone think this pacific democracy wrnuld have rallied to that at the moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain.

The Address-Mr. Leader

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. HANSELL:

Where did he make that speech?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. LEADER:

I am not sure.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. HANSELL:

I think it was in the

British House of Commons.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. LEADER:

Now, without casting any

aspersions on ex-prime minister Baldwin-

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Lord Baldwin.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. LEADER:

Whatever his title, I want to say he was the head of one of the greatest munition factories in Great Britain at the time, the Baldwin locomotive works-

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, no.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

John Ritchie MacNicol

National Government

Mr. MacNICOL:

The Baldwin Steel

company.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. LEADER:

Well, he was engaged at

the time in supplying munitions to Germany and any other country that would buy them.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

What

authority has the hon. member for that statement?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

February 13, 1942