February 19, 1943

CIVIL SERVICE

STATEMENT AS TO PROGRESS IN CONSTRUCTION OP WOMEN'S HOSTEL IN OTTAWA


On the orders of the day:


LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public AVorks):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) put a question concerning the women's hostel in Ottawa. The information I have is as follows:

The only hostel which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works is the one in Ottawa. It is true progress is slow on this but it is owing entirely to the inability on the part of the contractor to obtain priorities to provide the necessary materials. Provision of construction materials to-day has become acute, particularly lumber, timber, hardware, electrical equipment and plumbing supplies. In view of the difficulties in obtaining these materials, it is considered

that the contractors are making as good time as is possible. There has been during the past month a small amount of lost time on account of weather conditions, but anyone familiar with the construction industry knows that little or no progress has been made with any project under weather conditions such as have prevailed at certain times in the past month.

The answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) will have to be obtained from Wartime Housing Limited through the medium of the Department of Munitions and Supply, through which this company operates.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   STATEMENT AS TO PROGRESS IN CONSTRUCTION OP WOMEN'S HOSTEL IN OTTAWA
Permalink

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY


The house resumed from Thursday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cardin. Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics for thirty-four years, and I am in my nineteenth year as a member of parliament. This is the most important debate that has ever taken place in this chamber. The purpose of the debate is to know precisely whether our war effort is to continue or whether it is to stop on account of the lack of man-power in industry at large; and when I say that I want to make special mention of agriculture, of railways, and of war industry properly so called. Since the beginning of the war I have regretted very deeply that the instruments at the disposal of the government for propaganda-and I mention the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Wartime Information pamphlets, and the censor-have not been used at all to help the Canadian people understand the real aim and purpose of the National Resources Mobilization Act. A halo of glory has been placed around the heads of those wearing the uniform- quite properly so for those who are really in the army, but very improperly so for the slackers in uniform; and there has been a real deficiency in the fact that the farmers of this country, who are doing work that is essential in war as well as in peace, the railwaymen who carry men and food across the country, the workmen in the war industries, those who make arms and ammunition, The Address-Mr. Pouliot have not perhaps in the public mind the same glory that has been bestowed upon the army. But if they did not exist, if they were not doing work that is so essential, the army would be unable to fight. I regret, therefore, that the Canadian people have been left under a false impression by such propaganda, which was intended to serve ends other than those *we are fighting for. If you look at a watch, if you look at a clock, you will see the hands that mark the time, but you will not see the movements of the clock which do the work and owing to which the hands indicate the right time. We do not see those movements. The work of the farmers, the work of the railwaymen, the work of the men in war industries has been unseen by many, but it has been real; and to-day, if some countries in the world are fighting our enemy with such success, that success is due not only to the soldiers who are in the field, or the sailors at sea, but also to the humble working men covered with sweat, whose overalls are covered with grease spots and who do work which is indispensable now, which cannot be ignored and which must have the best encouragement possible from the country which, so far as we are concerned, we represent, in this house. There is one more reason why it is my duty to point out that this is the most important debate that has ever taken place in this parliament, because now the eyes of all my hon. colleagues are opening to the reality of facts. What I deeply admire from the bottom of my heart is the unanimity of expression in all the speeches which have been delivered by hon. members, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) down to the most humble member. Members of parliament observe that the bright skies of enthusiasm are dissipated. For the first time since the beginning of the war members of parliament are considering war objectively. They are considering war with the logical purpose of winning by putting everyone in his place, in order that each man, whether he be in the army or out of the army, shall do the very best he can towards our common aim, which is victory. The acoustics of this chamber are not very good and, therefore, I have taken the trouble, rather I should say it was a satisfaction, a pleasure; to read the speeches that have been delivered by all hon. members, showing a unanimity of expression that reveals unanimity of purpose in seeing to it that the National Resources Mobilization Act shall be enforced so that it can guarantee to the army that they will always have food and arms and munitions and guarantee to the civilian population that they shall not suffer from any shortage of food. I have made a list giving the names of all hon. members who have spoken on man-power since the beginning of this debate, and the pages of Hansard to which I refer; The Prime Minister, page 45; the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), 267-271; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), 130-131; the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), 284; the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle), 315-316; the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Cassel-man), 355; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Mills), 365; the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou), 428-429-and may I congratulate him upon his excellent speech-the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir), 476; the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard), 483484; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), 497; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette) who is the Quebec whip for the government, 513-514, and the member for Temiscouata, 343-344. All those fourteen government members spoke the same way about it. We want the mobilization act to be useful in this country; we do not want it to serve only one purpose among the many that are expected from it; we want it to give a full result. I shall say a word about that in a moment. Speaking on the other side of the house my hon. friends will pardon me; this list is not complete; it goes to the day before yesterday, but I will make special mention of yesterday- the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) made an excellent speech, pages 317-326 of Hansard; the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), 456, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), 310312; the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) 478; the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), 150-151; the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), 516; the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), 58-59; the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), 97-98; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), 348; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), 372; the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) 431, and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr Shaw) 289. With regard to the Conservative side of the house I have heard to-day that to some people it looks strange that the official opposition, which has been battling for some time for conscription for overseas at all costs, has now adopted another view. Their view is now in comformity with what has been



The Address-Mr. Pouliot



said on this side of the house, even bymembers of the cabinet. It has been said by representatives of independent groups; it has been said by Liberals; it has been said by Conservatives also. I pay special tribute to my good friend the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) for the excellent speech that he made; I refer to pages 85, 87, 88 and 90; the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), 136; the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), 160-161; the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), 179-180; the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), 244-245; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), 275 and 447; the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), 277; the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), 335-337; the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), 356; and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), 464. If I now take Hansard of yesterday, besides the hon. member for Compton, to whom I referred a moment ago, I find the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White), together with many others, and especially my good friends the hon. members for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix), Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) and Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Aylesworth), to mention those whom I have heard. I do not say that this list is complete, but I went through Hansard as carefully but also as fast as I could. I came to the conclusion that never in the history of this parliament was there such unanimity about a matter of vital importance. I congratulate my hon. colleagues upon the speeches they have made, as representing the real feelings of their constituents. My hon. friends have been true to the mandate that they have received from them. What are we going to do? I was greatly impressed yesterday when I saw the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) rising in his place in parliament to ask hon. members to act in accordance with what has been said by all. He wants the members of parliament to be logical with themselves, by passing an act which will remedy the evils that all now deplore. Everybody has been complaining also of bureaucracy; everybody is complaining that the rights of parliament have been overlooked for a long time. The remedy suggested by the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres is that at the present time the mobilization act should be suspended until members of parliament gathered together in a committee get enough information about the needs of all industries in Canada for the war effort and in conformity with the letter and spirit of the act. This is fair.


LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

The amendment does not say so.

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

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I regret very much that the hon. gentleman has not read it-

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I have.

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

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

-but I have not time to read it. It is at page 551 of Hansard, and if he will read it, it will be much better for him than to laugh with the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) when I speak of serious matters. It is not a time for joking; sometimes we make little jokes, but at this time I am talking seriously and everyone is serious except those two hon. gentlemen. I -want them to understand that the matter is worthy of consideration, especially at Vancouver as well as at home.

At the present time the national selective service is just the tool of the Department of National Defence. What do I mean by that? I have explained it in an article about manpower which I have sent to eveiy hon. gentleman. The purpose of the mobilization act is to consider not only the case of an individual but at the same time to consider what can best be done by this man or that woman for the state, the nation. At the county fairs farmers are praised; they are told that they are the salt of the earth, that they have qualities and virtues equalled by no others and that they are kings on their farms. But one must remember that the work of the farmer is very hard, that tilling the land means many sacrifices, and that when a farmer is uprooted it is impossible to transplant him again on a farm. This is the experience of all nations. Yet with the solemn promises that have been made to the farmers not to disturb them at the present time I have evidence that the national selective service is acting like the ordnance stores to fill the requisitions of the national defence department. They receive from that department a request for men; then they try to get those men, from the farms or from industry. That is how national selective service works, and probably that is why the offices of the registrars which were under the Department of National War Services have been transferred to the Department of Labour.

Is that clear enough? I want hon. gentlemen to understand fully the point I am making. I say that national selective service cannot be only the tool of the army. It is impossible; it cannot work. National selective service as we have created it by an act

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

of parliament is an organization which should direct each man and woman of military age to the job he or she can do best to help in winning the war. That was the intent of the law makers; that is the purpose of the legislation. That is why we should act at this time in accordance with the suggestion offered by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) in his subamendment and withhold the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service until at least a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house to ascertain and determine by what means or methods-

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

That is not the correct phraseology of the amendment. Please read it as it appears at page 551 of Hansard.

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

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I will sit down and let my hon. friend read it, and I shall correct him. Everyone has the amendment before him. I am ready to answer any questions but I do not want to be interrupted when I am speaking. However, if I have time I shall read it in full, so there may be no mistake:

This house is of the opinion that in view of the recognized shortage of farm labour, also the admitted shortage of labour in war industries and in other essential industrial and transportation activities, Your Excellency's advisers should have provided for the withholding-

That is, the suspension; I say that in case somebody may misunderstand it. That word is not there, but it will appear in Hansard as my own.

-of the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service until, at least a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house, to ascertain and determine by what means or methods Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war, without destroying the economic, social and national life of the country.

That is the amendment that everyone heard last night or read in the morning papers or heard to-day. This is a vital question. From ocean to ocean, from south to north, in every Canadian home those who were listening to the radio last night at eleven and twelve o'clock and this morning at eight o'clock, eight thirty and nine o'clock, in rich mansions and poor dwellings, asked themselves the same question: What will be the

attitude of my member of parliament on this vital issue? Of course temptations are great. There are many vacancies in the senate. There is a job which will be open at the transport board. There are the new jobs that have been created for parliamentary

secretaries. The Christmas tree is in full swing. " What will my member of parliament do? Will he think only of himself or will he remember the poor farmers of his county, the miners, the railway men, those engaged in war industries, all those who are trying to do their best to help the war effort?" They all ask that, and they say it is time to separate the wheat from the chaff. They will say, " We hope our member of parliament will not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage." I remember that during a by-election in New Brunswick, in the maritimes, a big bully who was minister of public works of that province was holding a meeting, at which I asked for the opportunity of some discussion. He spoke first, and he told the good people who were there, "Vote for my candidate, and you will get everything; vote against him and you will get nothing." When it came my turn to reply I made reference to that biblical scene describing the temptation of Our Lord, after His fast of forty days in the desert. I said to those good people, "Now history repeats itself. That man is talking like Satan, when he tried to tempt Our Lord by showing Him large cities and wealth which would be His if He dared kneel before Satan." I said to them, " I know your answer will be the same as that made by Our Lord Himself -get thee behind me, Satan!"

Right Hon., W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think it is advisable for me to intervene at an early stage in the debate on this amendment to the amendment if for no reason other than first to make perfectly clear what in reality the amendment to the amendment says and proposes and, in the second- place, what, in our parliamentary practice, it means.

Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member who has just taken his seat has read the subamendment in part, I should like to repeat what he has read, and also a portion of the subamendment he did not read. After it is stated that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc) the subamendment begins:

That all the words after the word "that" in the first line of the said amendment be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor.

The point I wish to make perfectly clear is this, that the amendment of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is in the nature of a want of confidence motion in the present government. The hon. member seeks to effect that end by substituting a want of confidence motion of his own for the want of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

confidence motion moved by the leader of hon. members sitting immediately opposite. The hon. member for Riehelieu-Verch^res proposes that the house should strike out of their amendment all the words except the first few, namely, "We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that-". Those words are allowed to remain, but all the words following are to be stricken out, and in their stead are to be substituted words which I shall read in a few minutes.

I do not know that I could take any exception to that part of the subamendment which would strike out the want of confidence motion on the part of the Progressive Conservative party. I doubt however if they will be prepared to have their want of confidence motion eliminated in order that they might support the substitute motion which is being proposed by the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres.

The words the hon, member for Richelieu-

Vercheres wishes to substitute are the following:

This house is of the opinion that in view of the recognized shortage of farm labour, also the admitted shortage of labour in war industries and in other essential industrial and transportation activities. Your Excellency's advisers should have provided for the withholding of the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service until, at least, a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house, to ascertain and determine by what means or methods Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war, without destroying the economic, social and national life of the country.

Let me examine these various statements. First:

This house is of the opinion-

And what, is the opinion in which we are asked to concur?

_ -that Your Excellency's advisers should have ' provided for the withholding of the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service-

Note first these words:

-should have provided for the withholding of the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act-

" Should have provided "- in other words, before parliament assembled, and when the speech from the throne was being prepared, it is suggested by the hon. member that, instead of setting forth what was set forth in the speech from the throne of the government's programme, the government should have had His Exeelleny say that a part of the government's programme was to withhold the operation of the National Resources

fVTr. Mackenzie King.]

Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service.

That point I wish to make perfectly clear. It indicates what my hon. friend thinks the government should have done, namely, that it should have come to the house when parliament assembled and told hon. members that part of its policy was to withhold at once the operation of that part of the National Resources Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service.

And for how long was the operation of this portion of the act to be withheld? The next clause in the amendment makes that clear:

-until at least a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house.

Only yesterday the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) requested a debate in the house before another important matter, namely, social security, should go to a committee of the house for investigation. As his reason for wishing to have the debate at once he said that matters which went to committees were likely to be discussed there for the whole of a session, and that in all probability no recommendations would be made until the end of the session. I said to him at the time I did not think he was wholly correct in that assumption. However, it is perfectly clear from the amendment to the amendment that what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres wished the government to do was to tell the house that until there had been full investigation by a committee of the house into the matters to which he has referred in his subamendment there should be no further operation of that part of the act which relates to the raising of men for military service.

But an even more remarkable feature, perhaps. is what the investigation was to determine. This investigation was-

-to ascertain and determine by what means or methods Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war.

In other words it was to be left to a committee of the house to determine the means and the methods by which Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war.

My hon. friend is an old colleague. I have known him well, both within the cabinet and without it; and I recall very distinctly that when we were Colleagues in the cabinet together no one was more insistent than my hon. friend upon the government having a policy of its own, and not leaving it to a committee of the house or any other body to determine its policy. Yet to-day he suggests in regard to the all-important matter

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

of winning the war that the best method to employ from now on would be to leave the matter, in the first instance, to a committee of the house.

This is all the more surprising, coming from the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, when we find that the hon. member himself has quite frankly stated his warm approval of what the government has already done in the matter of its war effort. And this war effort, which my hon. friend has praised so unreservedly, was achieved by the present administration, with the support of the house, it is true, but without any reference to a select committee in the first instance. Let me read what the hon. member said in that regard in one of his speeches in the present debate:

The speech from the throne also reviews our war effort. It has been a magnificent effort, I admit, and I am glad of it. All Canadians are proud of it, and we have the profound satisfaction of having it recognized that our war effort surpasses that of any other country of our size. As far as man-power and finance are concerned, our war effort is superior to that of the great republic to the south, the United States.

I say to my hon. friend: If the government of the day was capable of so planning its war effort that up to the present time it merits the encomium which he himself has passed upon it, surely the government still remains capable of deciding the best ways and means by which Canada's war effort may be carried on during the remainder of the time it may have that responsibility.

But my hon. friend goes a step further. He suggests that we carry this out without destroying the economic, social and national life of the country. I shall have a word to say later in regard to that particular clause.

I have indicated what my hon. friend in his amendment says the government should have done when it came to parliament, when parliament opened. I want to ask him, and I want to ask hon. members: what would have been said of the government if it had come to this house with the recommendation which he says we should have made at the time, or if we had followed the course which he says we should have adopted? Assuming that we had agreed to the view of my hon. friend and had come to this house and said: We have decided to withhold the operation of the national mobilization act with respect to the calling up of men for service until a committee of this house has made a full investigation and reported to the House of Commons on the best ways and means of carrying on the war from now on. How would that have been received in different quarters?

To begin with, so far as this House of Commons is concerned, there would instantly have been a cry from the other side to the effect that we no longer enjoyed the confidence of the house because we were unable to state a policy which was our own with respect to the carrying on of the war. What would have been the effect upon the people of Canada of a pronouncement of this kind? Simultaneously, from one end of the country to the other, it would have been said that the government was preparing to back out of the war; that the government was quitting the war altogether; that it had started off by suspending the operation of the national mobilization act with respect to the calling up of men.

May I point out in this connection that it is to that part of the mobilization act which refers to the calling up of men for the defence of Canada in Canada and immediate environments that my hon. friend's amendment refers. My hon. friend has made no reference in any particular to the sending of men overseas; that does not enter into it. He himself was a party in the cabinet to the drafting of the National Resources Mobilization Act; he was a supporter of it on the floor of this house. My hon. friend will recall that the National Resources Mobilization Act was enacted immediately after the collapse of France. He was eloquent at that time in his support of the act. Why? Because of what it would mean for the defence of Canada, as well as for the defence of freedom in other parts of the world. Throughout the country there was the strongest appeal for the support of this act, and the calling up of men under it to serve in the defence of Canada. Has the situation so developed that to-day the defence of Canada by men called up under the mobilization act is not as necessary as it has been at any time in this war? Unless I am wrong in my reading of the times, the necessity is greater than ever for protection against an enemy as powerful as the axis powers are at this present time. Let me repeat, my hon. friend was one who supported the policy embodied in the act; he advocated it; but now he says that we should suspend the operation of an important part of the very act he 60 strongly endorsed.

What would have been the effect of action of that kind on the part of our government upon our men who are serving in all parts of the world in the armed forces of the country? What would have been the effect upon our troops in Great Britain and elsewhere? I say that it would have created consternation in the minds of the men of the armed forces in all parts of the world, if it could have been

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

said by anyone that the government of the day at this time of war had ceased to continue in operation the part of the mobilization act which related to the defence of Canada itself. Those men who are a long distance from home, who are helping to protect this country and to save it from disaster, would be asking themselves: Is this the kind of support we are getting from our home country and from our government? Is our parliament going to support that kind of action? Does it mean that while we are fighting here we are not going to get the reinforcements that we had hoped would be ready to come if they were necessary? Does it mean that we are not' going to get the supplies that are needed at the time of our greatest need? I ask my hon. friend, I ask all hon. members, what would be the effect upon the whole war effort of Canada if a feeling of that kind were spread abroad among the armed forces of this country?

What would have been the effect upon Great Britain and other British dominions? Great Britain to-day has her men fighting in all parts of the world. They are fighting for the protection of Canada as well as for the protection of Britain. They are fighting for the defence of freedom throughout the world. They are fighting to prevent the axis powers from dominating this world. What would have been the effect in Great Britain if the government of Canada had met this parliament with the announcement that it no longer intended to operate under an act with respect to the calling up of men for military service which the parliament of Canada itself had passed, until a whole session of parliament had been devoted to making an investigation as to ways and means in which the war effort of Canada could be carried on from now on?

What about Australia, where men are fighting the Japanese? They are fighting our battle as well as their own when they are keeping the enemy engaged in the southwestern portion of the Pacific. What about the men of New Zealand, who have been fighting in Africa and in other parts of the world and who, at any time, may have to fight on their own territory? What about the men of South Africa who are fighting in north Africa? These men are fighting for the defence of their soil and for the defence of freedom. What would have bf ;n the effect upon them if they had read that the government of Canada had for the time being suspended the operation of an act which related to the calling up of men for the defence of its own country and territory?

To go a step further, what would have been the effect upon our allies other than those I have mentioned? What would have been the

effect in the United States? If my hon. friend had wished to give to the isolationists of the United States the finest weapon they ever had, he would have put one into their hands by having a proposal of that kind accepted. That weapon would be put into their hands now if this House of Commons were to adopt his amendment at this time. Does anyone think that, throughout the United States, from one end of that country to the other, attention would not have been drawn to the fact that the government of Canada had ceased to call up men? What would those isolationists have asked of their administration? We would soon have heard of a widespread demand throughout the United States that there be no more calling up of men for military service. How much would we be helping the cause of freedom and the allies if a cry of that kind were raised in the great country to the south? But my hon. friend has made clear in one of his speeches what he feels about the service that is being rendered by others of our allies. When I referred a moment ago to what my hon. friend said about the war effort I was referring to what he said on February 9, not last night. .

I want to read to the house another statement which my hon. friend made on February 9, and I must say that when I beard him make that statement I felt that at last he had grasped the full significance of this war-that it was a world war, that it was a war which affects all the countries which love freedom, and that every country which sought to preserve its freedom was helping to preserve the freedom of other countries. No words could have been more emphatic than those which were used by my hon. friend when he said, speaking of China and Russia:

Dear old China, that we love so much to-day, that we praise so much to-day and proclaim to be one of the first peoples in the world!

And a little further on:

We have discovered that she is a great country, a country that deserves our praise and support. We have modified our views; we have become a little more courageous and ready to help China now, as well as Russia. Let us give them what they need most, not men but food and armaments. That is what they want to enable them to carry on this struggle. As a matter of fact they are fighting for us as much as they are fighting for their country.

That is what my hon. friend said, that China is fighting as much for us as she is fighting for China. I think my hon. friend had the correct vision then, the larger vision, and realized that we owe it to China to do all we can in a similiar way for her, that in fighting for ourselves, we are also fighting for her, and vice versa.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

What did he say with respect to Russia:

If we have some success to-day, who has achieved that success? The Russians. Without Russia where would we be? Probably we would be signing a treaty of peace, not according to our terms or our will, but according to the will of others. That would be our position. ,

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. friend would go out through his own province from one end of it to the other and make those statements to the people, he would be rendering a real service to his country and a real service to the cause of freedom. I believe that there are few truer statements, no more correct perspective of this war and its significance for Canada as well as for our allies than are to be found in these two statements made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. If we have some success to-day, he asks, who has achieved that success? I would not confine the answer to the Russians; I would include all the countries that are banded together as part of the united nations. It is true that the Russians have within the last year taken a part in the war which has saved other nations of the world and, in the mind of my hon. friend as expressed in the words I have quoted, has saved this dominion from being conquered

that is what it is-Russia has saved this dominion from being conquered. Without Russia, he asked, where would we be? And he went on:

Probably we would be signing a treaty of peace, not according to our terms or our will, but according to the will of others. That would be our position.

Are we going to reward China, are we going to reward Russia, for what these great countries have done for us as well as for themselves and others through the sacrifices of their men and women, by telling them that we in Canada have *now reached a decision that we are not going to call up any more men under our National Resources Mobilization Act for service in our own country, but are going to suspend our war effort for a time while parliament and the government make up their minds how best they can carry out the war aims of Canada? I say to my hon. friend that if his resolution were to carry and these words were to be read in China and in Russia to-morrow, there would be cause for humiliation indeed on the part of this country, and shameful humiliation at that.

There is one other all-important aspect to be considered. I have spoken of the effect of his proposals upon our allies. What about their effect upon our enemies? And here I hope this House of Commons will appreciate the real significance of amendments of this character and of statements of this character when made in this House of Commons. The

hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said that in every home throughout his province the people would be reading to-day the statement which was made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres last night. Well, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in every home in Germany to-day that statement is being poured into the ears of the German people. Perhaps in every home in Japan this statement of a former member of the government of Canada -and stated as being such-is being poured into the ears of the Japanese people. You ask, why would they do that? Well, could anything bring more comfort to the enemy than to tell them that the parliament of Canada at last had had one of its members stand up and advocate that the Canadian government should not have its war policies clearly defined and those policies carried out until a committee of the House of Commons had begun, after months and months of study and investigation, to indicate what should be done?

Here may I read the last words of the proposed amendment and give them their true significance:

. . . until, at least, a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house, to ascertain and determine by what means or methods Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war, without destroying the economic, social and national life of the country.

Do not those last words carry with them the implication that the government's policies are destroying the economic, social and national life of the country? And if they carry that implication in our minds here, or were intended to have that implication on the part of the mover of the subamendment, how will they be interpreted in Germany? How will they be interpreted in Japan? They will be interpreted there as meaning that already in Canada the economic, social and national life of the country is beginning to be destroyed. Destroyed why? Because of Germany's successes! Because of Japan's successes, because of the power of the axisl It will be said that because of these successes we see already in the Dominion of Canada, the first of the great dominions of the British empire, a former minister of the crown and a member of parliament saying that the economic, social and national life of the country is being destroyed or about to be destroyed or may be destroyed in consequence of the war and the government's war policies. Is there anything that these axis powers desire more than to sow that kind of belief in the minds of their people, that here and there, first one nation, and then another nation, and then another, are becoming dissatisfied and beginning to withdraw

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

from active participation in the war in which they have been participating up to the present time? I can imagine what Goebbels is saying to the German people. I can imagine what his vile tongue will repeat to the German people as to wdrnt is taking place in the Dominion of Canada. I wish to repeat that these are the things that count in this war- the morale of a people, the belief in the unity and determination of a people. These things mean more at this present crisis than any thing else could possibly mean. For any word to go out from Canada which could be construed in any way as meaning that the economic, social and national life of Canada was being destroyed because of the part we are taking in this war-I say that nothing more unpatriotic could possibly be expressed.

But is it a fact? What about the economic, social, and national life of our country? My hon. friend has spoken about agriculture and about industry. Is it not true that to-day industrial production and agricultural production are greater than they have ever been in the history of Canada? Is it not true that the national income and the revenues of this country are higher to-day than they have been at any other time in its history? Is it not true that more men and women are in gainful employment to-day than have ever been in gainful employment in Canada in the whole of our history? How then can it be said that our economic, social and national life is being destroyed? I believe that there has never been a time in Canada's history when the Canadian people, speaking generally -not taking note of individuals here and there, but speaking generally-were more united and determined in any effort than they are in our war effort at the present time? And may I add to what I have said, as to the position of Canada, that there never was a time when consumer goods were as equitably distributed among the great body of the people as they are in Canada at this time.

Let me come now to the nature of the amendment to the amendment itself. I indicated at the outset that it was a no confidence motion, and I want every hon. member of this house to understand that. Those who support this motion are supporting a motion of no confidence in the administration. I want to ask the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, this question: If he has no confidence in this administration, in whom has he confidence? I ask, has he confidence in the Progressive Conservative party opposite? Is he prepared to give his support to them? Has he confidence in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and is he prepared to give his

support to that party? Has he confidence in the Social Credit party, and is he prepared to give his support to them? Has he confidence in the leader of the so-called Canadian party, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), and is he prepared to give his support to him? Is he prepared to give his support to the new leader of le bloc populate Canadien? And I notice there are several others who are styled as independents. Is he prepared to give his support and confidence to them? If he is not prepared to give his support and confidence to any of these parties, or groups, or individuals, why does he try to destroy the confidence of the people of this country in the one party upon whose shoulders rests the responsibility of carrying on this war?

There is something I should like to point out at this moment, which I think is very significant indeed in the history of Canada, in the light of rvhat we have witnessed in Europe since the beginning of the war. It is the danger there is to a country that begins to have a great number of different political parties. Look at France as she was prior to the war. Why did France collapse? France collapsed because, prior to the war itself, there began to spring up in that country political party after political party and personal and political rivalries-personal rivalries as well as political. We had an illustration of that sort of thing in this house last night. My hon. friend who moved this motion rose to introduce it, and immediately the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) felt that he was a political rival and that he should score, that he must have an opportunity of presenting a motion, no doubt something of the same character, before the hon. member, who was a former minister of the crown, obtained a chance to present his motion.

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

Joseph Sasseville Roy

Independent

Mr. ROY:

May I be permitted.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Sit down. *

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

What is my hon. friend saying?

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

Joseph Sasseville Roy

Independent

Mr. ROY:

Will the Prime Minister permit me to make a statement?

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Certainly.

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

February 19, 1943