August 12, 1944

NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

Order yourselves. What I was asking my hon. friend, who appears to be a military expert giving the relative strength of our troops, was if he knows what are the German forces that we have to meet.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

My hon. friend was very clever to distort his first question.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

You misunderstood me.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

I take your word.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

You had better.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

I have been asking myself who has been behind all the turmoil that has been created in this country. I am sure that even the hon. member who has been acting as leader of the opposition knows in his heart that behind the whole movement are the same privileged classes, a similar handful of men who want to accumulate the riches of this country at the expense of the labouring classes and the farmers. He knows perfectly well that that type of endeavour is not peculiar to this country.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

Is my hon. friend referring to me? I have not followed his speech.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

I am talking about the former leader of the opposition.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

It is a new experience for me to be accused of being a rich man.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

I said that the hon. member knew in his heart who were behind this movement. It is a small group of rich men who control the industry of this country. They want to create a smoke screen of prejudice against race and religion for the sole purpose of achieving their aim. Their -aim, is very simple-they want the head of the Prime Minister. They are the direct descendants of the daughter of Herodias.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I want to deny that I am any relation to Herodias. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I do not belong to any privileged class. I am not a rich man, but I do hope that I am a loyal supporter of our soldiers overseas.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

So am I. As I said, this movement is not peculiar to Canada, it is to be found all over the world. Hon. members know as well as I that human nature is the same wherever it may be found and at any

War Effort-Government Policy

period of history. Here is one place where I differ from my friends of the C.C.F. I believe that complete equality of wealth and riches is a utopia, because in every country there are men with greater talents than others who by their toil, their thrift and their ambition become rich. That is perfectly legitimate, and I am in favour of it. When they become rich they naturally control some part of the natural resources of their country and some share of its industry, and in so doing they help to develop the country and provide opportunities for their fellow men to earn money. That is perfectly proper. But where the line should be drawn is at the point where these ambitious men become so unreasonable that they abuse their riches and their strength and power. They had that class in the United States, and it was of this privileged class that Woodrow Wilson, a great president of our neighbouring republic, wrote in his book, "The New Freedom", the following words:

We ought not to permit passion to enter into our thoughts or our hearts in this great matter, we ought not to allow ourselves to be governed by resentment or any kind of evil feeling, but we ought, nevertheless, to realize the seriousness of our situation. That seriousness consists, singularly enough, not in the malevolence of the men who preside over our industrial life, but in their genius and in their honest thinking. These men believe that the prosperity of the country is not safe unless it is in their keeping. If tiler' were dishonest, we might out them out of business by law; since most of them are honest, we can put them out of business only by making it impossible for them to realize their genuine convictions.

Then listen to this:

I am not afraid of a knave. I am not afraid of a rascal. I am afraid of a strong man who is wrong and whose wrong thinking can be impressed upon other persons by his own force of character and force of speech.

In Canada, Mr. Speaker, this class, a few but very powerful men, are working behind the scenes and using their power to spread in this country prejudices against race and against religion, for what purpose? I repeat, they want to get rid of the present government, and I will tell you why. The present government is headed by one of the most distinguished statesmen in the world, who has amply demonstrated during many years past that he is on the side of the common people and the working classes. The Prime Minister many years ago showed his friendliness towards the working classes by having the fair wage law made a part of the law of this land. Later on he provided the opportunity for the labouring classes to organize and get together to better their working and living conditions and to secure higher wages. This legislation did not please the privileged class, those who control industry in this country, because in

helping the labouring classes to secure higher wages and better living conditions the legislation took away too much of the riches of the privileged class; so they were against it. It is the Prime Minister who is responsible for these laws. Later on he was responsible for bringing in legislation to control combines in this country, as well as many other laws restricting the powers of the privileged class, and during all these years that privileged class have been anxious in their hearts to find ways and means to get rid of such a pian because he stood in their way. That is the cold fact.

Later on this government headed by the same Prime Minister passed social legislation, for what purpose? It was passed for two purposes. The first purpose was to distribute more equitably the wealth of the nation among the labouring classes, the farming class and the middle class-wealth which had been unduly accumulated by and unjustly kept for the privileged class. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that that privileged class was pleased to see that legislation passed? Oh, no; they got behind the curtains to organize and find ways and means of destroying King at all costs. Their attitude was: King is the man that should be hated and got rid of, and we must get rid of him.

I have said that the Prime Minister and his government passed that social legislation for two purposes. The first purpose was to distribute more equitably the wealth of the nation. The other purpose was to try to stop the subversive elements which are active not only in this country but all over the world. Without being a seer I am convinced that the real intent in the heart of the Prime Minister in passing that social legislation was to set up Canada as an example for all the nations of the world and to entrench in this country a sound system of government with which extremists on both sides would be satisfied, thus preventing communism from taking over the reins of administration in this country. I believe that at the same time his object was to try to get control of this country out of the 'hands of that little gang of abusers that we call the privileged classes.

I am in duty bound to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister, without any hope of securing favour and without fear of the results, that if ever there was a man whose consistent purpose it has always been to do his utmost to help the poor and the unfortunate, the forlorn, the abandoned and the neglected, the common classes-not only of the province of Quebec as some of our friends have insinuated, but of the whole of Canada, to help those who need help and sympathy and are entitled to their legitimate

War Effort-Government Policy

share in the development of this country and the happiness which is due to any British subject who lives under the union jack, it is the Prime Minister of this country. It is said somewhere, in reference to Papineau:

II fut toute une epoque et longtemps notre race

N'eut que sa voix pour glaive et son corps pour cuirasse.

I should like to paraphrase these words of the poet and apply them to our distinguished leader:

There was a whole epoch and for a long time the common, ordinary people of this country had nothing but his voice as a sword and his body as a cuirass.

I have paraphrased this saying so as to apply it to the first minister of this country- not to try to help him, for he does not need my help. But every one of us, whatever our political allegiance, who is fair-minded must admit that the burden wjiich he has carried so many years, and especially during this dreadful war, is a very heavy burden and one which must have taxed his strength and energy. It is the duty of every man in this house and this country, especially those of us who come from the lower class, to tender him a friendly hand because he has played a great role in the destinies of this country.

I would refer now, Mr. Speaker, to the attitude taken by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, the purpose of whose amendment is to put power in the hands of the government against Quebec. An expression dear to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is "equality of sacrifice". In his last speech he said in effect: I am not satisfied with the terms of the order in council, but if I could be assured that these

16,000 men would be taken in equal proportion from each province, that would satisfy me. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to do anything to stir up prejudice. If to-day prejudices in the sister provinces of this great dominion are at their peak, I would not like to contribute in any way to a like feeling in my own native province. But may I say to the hon. member for Lake Centre, who is prone to demand that Quebec do its full share, and who insists even violently that it be so: I am satisfied that in the circumstances in which we live, Quebec has done a very large share, larger even than may be justified. May I call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the fact that, when the problem of the Doukhobors and other conscientious objectors comes before the house, everyone who is responsible for these people admits that the government is absolutely powerless to make them obey the law. This has been admitted in this chamber by ministers of the crown.

[Mr. Dupuis.l

Are these objectors very numerous, Mr. Speaker? Less than ten thousand. Yet the authorities are unable to compel this small group to be law-abiding citizens.

But when it comes to the position of French Canada we are told that they must do their duty, that if they do not do their duty there will be revolution; to obtain the legislation which they desire from this government they stir up hostile sentiment all over the country. So, because disturbances occur in certain parts of the country it is contended that the Prime Minister and the cabinet are bound to pass a law to satisfy these people. It is against Quebec: that is very fine. Poor Quebec! If it were not so serious it would be pitiful, coming from friends in this country who otherwise are freedom-loving people; people of British descent, people by whose race great things have been done. May I tell those who are doing their best to arouse prejudice in order to obtain their goal, that perhaps it is high time they relinquish their grip on the natural resources of this country by which their fortunes have been made, and allow other classes a share. In this connection I cannot do better than cite the sublime example of those great peers of England to whom Sir Wilfrid Laurier made such eloquent reference. He said:

I know of no spectacle that reflects greater honour on humanity than the spectacle of these peers of England, these rich and powerful nobles, stubbornly fighting to eradicate a host of venerable abuses and sacrificing their privileges with calm enthusiasm to make life easier and happier for a larger number of their fellow' beings.

Nobody, Mr. Speaker, can induce me to believe that the descendants of these great men who sacrificed their personal interests in behalf of the common people of England, in the abolition-for instance-of the rotten boroughs-that the liberty-loving descendants of these men who are to be found everywhere in Canada would not support me, a French Catholic fellow citizen, in removing any occasion of hardship or injustice. Therefore, why not leave these minds, why not leave the people with their ordinary well-balanced minds, the minds of Britishers? Why stir up prejudices? Why put into the hearts of the mothers, the sweethearts, the brothers and the fathers of our heroic soldiers over there the fear that these poor boys are to be abandoned and sacrificed because the people of Quebec refuse to do their duty, when we know perfectly well that that is an absolute falsehood? I beseech my fellow citizens, through you, Mr. Speaker, to cease this campaign, to come to the fold, to unite with us. I do not care who may be in power; the hour is too grave and the time too serious.

War Effort-Government Policy

What is the use of one part of this country trying to struggle against another part when those boys at the front give us so sublime an example, as was eloquently expressed the other night by the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Lapointe) ?

To summarize my views on this subject, on the one hand we find a part of the country completely disturbed by this falsehood in regard to reinforcements; on the other hand we find a part of the country-and mind you they are not only French-Canadians-suffering injustice, people who nevertheless are doing their duty; people who are going to be taken by force, no matter if in the past, up to the present time, they have been refused the privilege and the opportunity of taking part in the development of the natural resources of the country; no matter if they have been abandoned and sacrificed. They are forced by law to go against their will to fight in Europe, as reinforcements, when we know perfectly well that this is not necessary. At all events I, as a humble citizen, coming from the lower class and having sworn to myself to give whatever I could during my life, however modest it may be, to help the class from which I am sprung, am very much disturbed about the legislation which is now before the house. Shall I give confidence to my Prime Minister? Yes. But to be in favour of order in council 8891? No; not because I am French Canadian but because I know that this order in council has been passed by a means which is not appropriate to a democratic country. At the same time, am I to support the Prime Minister now that this order in council has become the law of the land? I repeat: support the Prime Minister, most decidedly; but for conscription, I cannot.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

You are on the spot, aren't you?

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

I speak for myself.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

You are on the spot.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

I am not afraid of being on the spot, but I am sorry for those who have put the country in such a useless position. At any rate, no matter if some of my fellow members in this house are laughing at me, no matter if I am ridiculed, I find the situation too serious, and in such circumstances, when the national soul is disturbed, when the people are unable to discover a solution for these difficult problems, I cannot do better than repeat the words of our King. Early in the beginning of this the greatest of all struggles, before Christmas, 1939, he said to a man who 100-431

stood at the gate of the year: "Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown."

The reply was: "Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than the known way."

I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and every one of my fellow citizens and fellow members to do likewise. Let us put our hand in the hand of God, and let us have faith, so that this country may pass safely through these difficult times and continue to move forward to that beautiful destiny which has been reserved for it by Divine Providence.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. R. ADAMSON:

(York West): Listening to the address which we have just heard I thought of certain lines from the poet Arthur Clough:

Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive

Officiously to keep alive.

We listened the other night to a point of view, expressed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, to which I take extreme and absolute exception. Coming as it did from the hon. and gallant member, I must respect it, but unfortunately that is more than I can say for what has gone on this afternoon. Apparently we are losing sight of the old simple virtues which were expressed by Pericles when he said that freedom is given only to those who are willing to fight for it.

If ever there was a time when freedom of religion, when all the four freedoms in fact were in desperate danger, it has been during this war. Let there be no possible doubt about that. Then the hon. member made comparisons and, I think, suggested that somebody else might do our reinforcing for us. I think that is wholly despicable to come from this Canadian parliament.

Our war effort was compared with those of the United Kingdom and1 the United States. The last figures I had indicated that the United Kingdom had in the neighbourhood of seventy-seven divisions and the United States had armed forces of something like eleven million personnel. For us to complain that five divisions and two armoured1 brigades is excessive for our population is to do something that will not hold water. Australia with a population of some two-thirds of ours has or has had in her armed forces something in the neighbourhood of 800,000 personnel. I shall deal with that a little later in my speech.

At the moment I wish to say something concerning this question of conscription that has not yet been mentioned. In the feudal days armies were raised by the individual baron or

War Effort-Government Policy

lord, and1 they were his own private armies. There was considerable trouble with that method all during Plantagenet days, and the right of the king versus the right of the barons was directly the cause of strife. Then we passed from the feudal method of raising an army to the professional soldier and the mercenary. That was reasonably satisfactory for a short time, but the value of the mercenary ended with the war of the American revolution, which in many ways was the first real war for freedom. But still the method of raising armies by the professional caste or the professional soldier continued right through Napoleonic times. During these wars the civil population of the country did not suffer unless they were more or less in the line of battle or in a blockaded part of the territory being fought for. All that changed with the war of 1914-18. This was the first real world war, a war on a national scope, where every citizen of every belligerent was affected by it. The traditional policy of Great Britain of voluntary enlistment and voluntary service for war had to go by the board in that war. It went by the board with a considerable struggle, but it was necessary that it go in order that Great Britain would survive. The same thing happened in Canada.

With the outbreak of the present war, an infinitely more complete war than that of 1914-18, we saw that no citizen, no civilian anywhere in the world could escape. Everybody was affected by the consequences of the war. Therefore to continue to rely on an archaic system of raising armies is wrong. That system is absolutely outmoded. But there is another feature that enters into the question. We in Canada have passed from the small nation country that we were in 1914. We are now a major belligerent and we cannot compare our effort with that of Northern Ireland where compulsion has yet to be enforced. We are a major belligerent and as such we have great responsibilities. I believe, and I strongly believe that from the start, that we should have had, call it conscription or any other name, from the day we entered the war, and I am quite convinced that there would have been no trouble either after the fall of Dunkirk and the fall of France or after Pearl Harbor. In my opinion the Canadian people are ready to accept their responsibility.

An article concerning this question appeared in the press this morning and I think it is of sufficient importance to read to the house. It comes from a United States paper, the Newark Evening News. The last paragraph reads as follows:

A volunteer system for fighting axis armies in this war is an anachronism. Does Canada, with its exposed Pacific coastline, think that volunteers can defeat Japan? The volunteer system is one of those luxuries of liberal tradition which have had to be given up in this war in the interests of national survival. The United States gave it up without protest because we knew we had it to do.

There is a factual statement from a neutral source in this argument.

I wish to go very briefly into my position in this matter since the beginning of this parliament. On July 31, 1940, at page 2211 of Hansard I had this to say:

I see no end of this war except through invasion of the enemy countries by the British army. In that event it is likely that we shall need our entire resources of man-power. I believe the government should realize that and make preparations in the year to come.

That was in almost our darkest days after the fall of France. I continued on the same page:

This is a war of machines; . . . The slogan of the British tank corps, "Be lavish with steel but stingy with blood," expreses the point of view of every officer who has anything to do with the fighting services and might well be adopted by all of us. The most valuable element in an army, and the one which takes longest to replace, is man-power.

A machine can be replaced in a short time, but it takes eighteen years to replace a man and the country loses its greatest asset. Therefore, in order to save life, I urged that we should redouble our efforts to produce the machines of war. Those remarks were made in the days when our whole effort was to get every possible weapon into the hands of those defending the last bastion of freedom, where people were patrolling the coasts armed with nothing more than clubs That is how great the danger was in those days. Therefore the first necessity is machines. Manpower and machines were stressed from the start. On May 8, 1941, at page 2687 of Hansard, I said:

It is almost criminal folly to delude ourselves into thinking that we are going to be able to get through this war without large military forces. . . . Thank God that we have had

no casualties. But we must expect them, and the time to expect them and prepare for them is now. To-day every fighting man is an expert, a specialist, and he takes time to train. If he becomes a casualty, he cannot be replaced by a raw recruit. That recruit must be a trained man, and the time to train the reinforcements is before the original soldier becomes a casualty, not afterwards. That time is now.

There is one other point, and it is an extremely important one, namely, that the surest way to have a long casualty list is to send untrained troops against the enemy.

So you see that the danger of sending untrained troops against the enemy was brought

War Effort-Government Policy

up in this house in 1941. Then in 1942, during the famous plebiscite debate, at page 294 of Hansard for February 3 of that year, I said:

The time has long passed when compulsory selective service for any part of the world has been of paramount necessity. This parliament should have enacted the necessary legislation after Dunkirk and the fall of France. The need now is even more imperative than ever. It is possible that it may already be too late. I believe that the declaration of war on Germany should have been preceded by a selective service act . . . there can be no half

measures in waging war.

Then on February 18, 1943, at page 522 of Hansard, I said:

There is no military operation so hazardous as attacking, over a considerable body of water, a well-fortified shore base. ... I do not know precisely the situation with regard to our trained reinforcements overseas. I believe, however-

In the light of what has happened I think this is significant.

*-that they are insufficient to maintain the Canadian army at striking-force, shock-troop efficiency for an intensive campaign of even medium duration. It is therefore probable that the powers given to the government in the plebiscite may have to be invoked, and that soldiers in the home defence army may have to be sent outside of Canada as reinforcements for our troops fighting against Hitler.

I want to put that very clearly on the record, because when the government talk about training, equipment, and infantry casualties coming as a surprise, I do not believe they have any excuse for not knowing what to expect. To-day we have that statement backed up again by a technical officer, a gunner, who puts his statements in print very clearly and specifically. I refer to Major Welsh, who says:

But our infantry has been reinforced, insufficiently, of course, with untrained men, or men trained in other highly specialized technique, such as artillery, while artillery itself suffered from lack of trained men. There is all the difference in the world in this war between numerical reinforcements and trained reinforcements.

Peter is being robbed to pay Paul. And Peter is desperately needy himself. By this I mean, for instance, we smash up anti-tank units to try to fill infantry gaps, and we are moving in Italy into the Po valley, which is ideal for Germany's tanks. The boys will be crying for anti-tank regiments there. And what breaks my heart is that this is being done by a country which always subscribed to the belief that a man should never be used if a shell would do the job.

I want to impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, and upon this house that my continued and continuing requests for complete national service in any theatre of the war, for adequate, abundant reinforcements, was based on that last sentence of Major Welsh's statement: "Do not send a man to do the job if you can

100-431J

send a shell." And worse, do not send a desperately tired man. Abundant reinforcements, if you have them, are the greatest life saver any army can have.

It has been suggested many times that in connection with our army we are biting off more than we can chew. That point was brought up this afternoon, and it has been brought up on other occasions. We have three divisions of infantry, two armoured divisions and two armoured brigades. With the supporting corps and army troops this would mean a combat strength of somewhere around 200,000 men, as a matter of fact rather less than that. We have heard in this house, in both open and secret sessions, great surprise expressed that the casualties suffered, particularly by the infantry, were fifty per cent higher than had been estimated by the general staff. Why this surprise? Surely with the experience of mobile warfare in Africa and Italy, and with the information available from the United Kingdom to guide us, we could have altered our estimates even during midsummer of this year. Again, indicating the information that one could gather from general knowledge, at page 296 of Hansard for February 3, 1942, in discussing this very question of reinforcements, after the formation of the five-division army, I said:

The plan will impose but a light burden indeed on our man-power, because it will require enlistments of but between six and seven thousand a month for the army.

I suggest to hon. members that in the light of events that estimate, which was a matter of general discussion at that time, has turned out to be not far from the fact.

Now we come to the present crisis, and I think it is worth while to go over the matter again very briefly. On August 6 General Crerar sent a telegram to C.M.H.Q. Apparently the adjutant general's branch at C.M.H.Q. did not instantly inform N.D.H.Q. of the contents of that telegram. In the first place I think that was an amazing action. Knowing this branch, however, I am not surprised. Then we had General Stuart undertaking the policy of remustering the army, apparently without consulting Ottawa, because he knew of the antipathy of the government to conscription. This is an even more amazing action.

Then on September 22 the former minister of national defence (Mr. Ralston) went over to Europe after having, no doubt, impressed upon the war committee the seriousness of the situation that then existed. He went to Italy, then to northwest Europe where he found, as he stated so clearly in this house, that the situation was worse than he could possibly

War Effort-Government Policy

have believed. He wired the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he was coming home three weeks earlier than he had intended and that he had something urgent he wanted' to discuss.

What happened? The Prime Minister knew or must have known what the then minister of national defence wanted to discuss. He must have known that he would) not have curtailed his trip to the continent by fifty per cent unless it was that one subject which he feared, the one subject which had been the Prime Minister's political philosophy for all his life-the talisman by which he has won all his elections-his nemesis, conscription. He must have realized that the message which would be brought to him would be bad and that it would demand immediate imperative action by the government.

What happened? In the Prime Minister's own words, he consulted the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. McNaughton), whose views he knew were in favour of the voluntary system. He did that so that when the former minister of national defence arrived home he would have a running mate or someone ready to jump into his place if he was adamant. And he would have us believe that he saved the day. That may have been a political manoeuvre, but it was one of the worst things that has ever happened in the political history of this country.

The former minister of national defence arrived home and told the Prime Minister that not only was there a shortage of reinforcements in the pools, but that they were practically empty and that there were actual and visual shortages in the units themselves. Not only that, the minister pleaded with him. There were cabinet meetings day in and day out, but the Prime Minister was adamant. He made the move he had contemplated, thinking he had weathered the crisis and pulled a rabbit out of the hat.

Fortunately the people of Canada at long last rose in their wrath and said, "This shall not be; this cannot happen; we will not stand for this." Protest meetings were held from one end of the country to the other. High officers, generals, resigned, and there was a threatened break-down of our whole military system because they and the people knew that the voluntary system had broken down and that there were no reinforcements. The suggestion has been made in this house that that movement in some way came from the wealthy, from the Conservatives, from pressure groups and from newspapers. Let me tell you that in my riding the pressure came from the people in one of the poorest

districts in one of the suburbs of Toronto. If there was any pressure put on me it was put on me by the poor working people of this country. I think you will find that that is what happened all across the country. The common people rose as one man and demanded action, and, thank God, they got it. So much for the past.

What about the future? The former minister of national defence has left the cabinet and he cannot be sure that the policies he fought for will be carried out. But he has said that he left certain members in the cabinet who will carry out those policies. That is rather like the ichneumon fly which lays its eggs in the body of its victim, the eggs hatching and finally devouring their host. Here we have five or six ministers in the cabinet pledged to carry out an action which the ex-minister of national defence demands. The Prime Minister, however, and several other members of the cabinet, particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), have definitely said that they dislike it.

That is the situation to-day. That is the situation upon which this house is to vote. We are being asked to vote confidence in this government on that situation. How can we do it? With a divided cabinet, with the prime mover of this policy outside the cabinet, with the present Minister of National Defence against the policy, with the Prime Minister against the policy, how can we trust the present cabinet? I say that by all the rules of logic this house cannot support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

We are told that we are going to get 16.000 N:R,M.A. men. The order in council is definite about the number; it limits it to 16,000. Let us see what that will do in the way of providing reinforcements. It has been said that we must not give out information which would aid the enemy, and I agree with that so that I shall endeavour to express pool reinforcements as a time factor. The target of trained men in the pools should1 be expressed as a function of time and perhaps it would be simpler to express it in an algebraic manner. Let X be the men in the pools, trained and ready for action, and Y the estimated casualties per month. The equation of X over Y would give you at the end of every month your cushion of reinforcements as a function of time. What do we find. We find that X over Y at the end of December can be expressed as half a month. X over Y at the end of January is three-quarters of a month and will never up to the end of May be much in excess of one month's reinforcements. In view of the fact that the general staff have under-

War Effort-Government Policy

estimated casualties, particularly infantry casualties, by fifty per cent in the past, I say, Mr. Speaker, that this allotment of N.R.M.A. men does not give us an adequate cushion for the reinforcement pools, to provide trained men behind the front line and to provide adequate training of the men who are to be sent into battle. That is another reason why I cannot support the present motion in the name of the Prime Minister. There is great room for error in the present calculations. I have emphasized that I have been talking about infantry casualties, and infantry only, because up to the present time the infantry has been the service where the major miscalculation of casualties was made. But from now on, so far as the Europen war goes, we are in a different type of war. We are entering the siege phase. We are entering the phase which requires all our arms to be attacking as a unit. We are not in the war of movement any longer, not in the war of ports and coastal liberation. We are attacking over the Cologne plain, if you will, over the fortified area which Germany has been building up for years, and which is her historical line of defence, and we have to get over that fortified area before we can get into the heartland of Germany. How long that will take I do not know, but that is the task now before us. That is another reason why I say that these 16,000 men do not, in my opinion, give us the necessary assurance of adequate reinforcements. That is the second reason why under no circumstances can I support the government's motion.

There is another question, and it is this. It can be summed up by asking, when is a volunteer not a volunteer? Or what is the difference between a volunteer who volunteers when he has reached the transports at the dockside and the man who goes forward under compulsion? That is a very important question. I do not believe that there should be any difference. That is a question which must be answered. When General McNaughton was on the floor of the house I asked him to see to it that no distinction would be made between the man who fights outside this country and the volunteer, because I disagree with the voluntary system in that feature.

In closing, I wish to say one thing about an election. The argument is being made that the war effort of this country would stop if we had an election. That is not so. The ex-minister of national defence disagreed with me. If we had an election now it would be almost a direct parallel with the election that was held recently in the United States, because the order in council has been passed and the

government is committed to the policy of conscripting 16,000 men. The election would be fought on the effectiveness of the present government. It would not be fought on the conscription issue because the conscription issue has been settled. That is over. Conscription is no longer an issue because we have conscription for overseas service. The only place where conscription would be discussed is perhaps in nationalist Quebec where the people say that the government has gone back on its pledges. But conscription has been an issue in the province of Quebec for the past quarter of a century in every election, and so it would be no different there now.

I would like briefly to discuss the Japanese war, or the Japanese phase of the war, phase II as it is called. We cannot consider that we have done our duty as a world power unless we play our part in the Japanese war. Once the war in Europe is over, the world will not be at peace. The world will not be at peace until the war in Asia is over too, and none of us, particularly in Canada, because we are a Pacific power, can relax for one instant in our efforts until the Japanese enemy is destroyed as completely as the German enemy. This is going to take large forces of men. We have to invade the Japanese homeland, just as we have to invade the German homeland, and when you invade any country you do it with the infantry. That has been proved over and over again. To think that we can ease ourselves behind the sure shield of the navy and the air force of the United States and Britain into peace with Japan or into the happy conclusion of the Asiatic war is an awful fallacy, and an extremely dangerous one.

I got this letter from an airman friend of mine who is serving in India. It is short, and I wish to read it to the house to show what the present vacillating policy of this government has done for Canadian prestige in India. The writer says:

R.A.F., India.

Nov. 16th.

My dear Adamson:

I am to-day in the very humbling position of having to make excuses for my country. To-day throughout the world people are reading that Canada is far from one hundred per cent behind the war. The inference is that the Canadians are lukewarm in their sympathies. This I cannot believe.

Knowing my feeling of dismay at the news that Canada is not likely to be able to provide replacements for her troops in the field, I can imagine how the fighting soldier must feel.

Are Canadians at home so self-satisfied, so secure, so smug that they cannot rise up in protest at such an attitude as that of the present government? If they are, then some forceful education is needed.

War Effort-Government Policy

I had hoped that at the close of this war Canada would have placed herself in the position (which she should be capable of; assuming) of a major world power. But she'll fall far short of that if she is unable or unwilling to maintain the comparatively small army which she has put in the field.

I know you will do your best to ensure that the fighting soldiers are properly supported. Good luck to you.

May I point out, in conclusion, that this letter is a challenge to every hon. member. We think of ourselves and we would like to think of ourselves as Canadians, citizens of no mean state; but unless we get over this provincialism as manifested by the actions of the present government, we shall never rise to man's estate-nationally-never.

Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, one of the gentlemen who sit up above your head in the press gallery has commented on this debate in the following terms:

So various are the approaches to the current political row that it would be virtually impossible to pick out one sentence from the whole of Hansard and have everyone agree that it was the real truth of the matter.

I am not so optimistic as to hope to correct that impression, but I wish to summarize as briefly as I can some of what appear to me to be the real truths of the matter which I have been discussing for several days with my fellow-members from Quebec. All hon. members of this house may not agree with the conclusions I propose to draw from them. But I appeal to all hon. members to consider carefully and dispassionately whether they do not represent a true statement of the factual background.

I believe that Canada's participation in this terrible war to the magnificent extent to which it has been and is being realized was absolutely , essential to the survival of this nation as a nation of free men. I believe that had it not been for the heroic and obstinate and successful resistance of the people of England, Scotland and Wales during 1940 and 1941, we here in Canada would now be either dead or slaves of nazi victors and masters. I believe that this heroic, obstinate and successful resistance purchased the time necessary to enable the people of the north American continent to appreciate the terrible menace which threatened them all as free men and also the time required to muster their resources to the extent necessary to meet and to overcome the menace. I believe that, as has already been asserted in this debate, this resistance of the people of England, Scotland and Wales, heroic and obstinate and valorous and glorious as it was, might have proved to be insuf-

ficient without the presence in that citadel of freedom of General McNaughton and his gallant Canadian troops. I believe that, without the contribution of our airmen in the mighty battles which were fought over the skies of the British isles, without the contribution of our navy to the maintenance of the life line between them and this continent, sufficient time might not have been purchased to prepare all that the defence of our lives, and homes, and liberties has required and still requires. I believe that the time thus purchased had to be used, and I think it was used, both for the purpose of making the men and women of this continent conscious of the danger that threatened the world, and for the purpose of mobilizing our resources to meet total war by waging total war against it.

Now, total war, for this young nation and probably also for our powerful neighbours to the south, did not mean only a great expansion of our navy and our air force and the raising of the largest expeditionary army that this country could properly maintain and equip, but also meant great intensification in our agricultural production to meet the indispensable food requirements, the establishing and manning of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of new industries to turn out the indispensable implements of warfare, and the entirely new conceptions and technique of finance to finance a total war through our own domestic monetary machinery.

Even now, Mr. Speaker, we must still remember that all that has to go on and must be kept in proper balance until full victory is achieved.

I also believe that this time we must pursue our victory to such a conclusion that never again may any Germans or Japanese living to-day or any of their children dare to threaten the peace of the world and endeavour to enslave it. I believe that this nation must continue to contribute its full share to the joint efforts of that gallant company of free nations pledged and determined to achieve and to consolidate that kind of victory.

I believe that our Canadian men in our navy, our army and our air force, who have fought and are fighting in that gallant company, have done so and are doing so at our instance, for us, so that we who are sitting here to-day and those whom we represent in this assembly may continue to live and to enjoy and to operate our free democratic social institutions.

It is for us, for you and for me, Mr. Speaker, and for our colleagues in this house and for those whom we represent that these men are enduring, are bleeding, are perhaps dying this

War Effort-Government Policy

very day, while we are here talking and debating as to how best we can act so that the numbers of them who may become casualties shall not be increased.

Up to the evening of November 22 I sincerely believed that that object could be best achieved by adhering to the voluntary system, the system under which over 900,000 of our bravest and best have offered their services in this great cause. I believed that sufficient additional reinforcements might still be obtained by that voluntary system. I also believed that our infantry troops having had two pivotal jobs to do and having done them with great success but also at severe cost during long periods of intense activity, they might properly have compensating periods of normal activity or quiet during which the normal flow of reinforcements into our pools would make up for the heavy strain that had been put upon these pools during the preceding weeks of intense activity. This seemed doubly true, in view of the great numbers of fighting men in northwestern Europe, of the coming into line of the French army and of the Belgian army to do their share. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has told the house that on November 22 General McNaughton himself, in conference with his staff, had come to certain conclusions and had presented them to the government on the evening of that day. As a result of that presentation I had to bring my mind to bear upon two different aspects of the problem, which had not before impressed me as they had perhaps already impressed some of my colleagues.

One was, that without adequate infantry units equal to any tasks which the fortune of battle might at any time bring into being, none of our troops could venture into the fighting line and our whole fighting effort would remain paralyzed. I was made to realize that our infantry troops make up only one-fifth in number of our fighting arms, and I felt that we could not expect periods of comparative or total inactivity for these infantry to wipe out any margin of possible shortage of infantry reinforcements, if those periods of comparative or total inactivity had to be shared by the other four-fifths of our fighting units and all of them remain out of action. That was something that just could not be allowed to happen. I readily imagined what use nazi propaganda might make of this appearance that the Canadian forces were no longer in the fight. Would it not have been used to the dreadful purpose of stiffening resistance and promising the German people that it was an example which other allied forces might soon be disposed to follow and

that all they had to do was to hold on long enough and they would wear us all out? Who can tell what prolongation of this terrible conflict that might have meant?

The other aspect I had to consider was the possible psychological effect of adequate reinforcement pools in the battle areas and in England. I was impressed by the consideration that the possible inadequacy of such pools might affect the morale of the men in the fighting line to an extent that would make them more vulnerable in battle; this in turn might mean casualties that would not otherwise be incurred.

That consideration was also of great weight, one which each one of us had to face in his own conscience. Those men in the fighting lines are fighting our battles for us at our behest, and their lives must be guarded in every way that is dependent upon action that can be taken from here.

On November 22 it appeared that for the reasons which have already been discussed, or at least for some reasons good or bad, the numbers required for these substantial reserves might be larger than were apt to be provided in time by voluntary conversion of trained and fit personnel in our N.R.M.A. forces and general service, and no one but a fit and already trained man could meet those requirements. I therefore heeded the passionate appeal which the Prime Minister has told you he made to every one of his colleagues. I fully realized the possible and probable reactions among a great many in my province to my conduct in accepting to go on when any measure whatsoever of compulsion is added to the voluntary system for service overseas as the policy of the government. But I came here to do a war job, and because it was felt by the Prime Minister, rightly or wrongly, that I could be of some help, I feel I must still go on, whatever may be the increase in the difficulties of the task, so long as it is made apparent to me that these difficulties arise out of facts which have a bearing on the security of the men who are doing so much more for us than anything we can do for them.

I still felt and I hoped that compulsion might not be necessary to secure in time the required number of fit and trained men. In view of the magnificent success of the voluntary system in the last few days and the mounting numbers of fit and trained men now coming forward, there is still ample justification for that feeling and that hope. But no chance could be taken about it, and I decided that I would stand or fall with the Prime Minister. I may add that I have taken and I still take both comfort and pride in

War Effort-Government Policy

that decision. I also take comfort and pride in the knowledge that so long as any N.R.M.A. men are available, whether now in service or hereafter enrolled, adequate and timely reinforcements are fully assured. And that being fully and amply assured, who can begrudge me such comfort and pride as I can get out of the fact that the increase in the conversions from N.R.M.A. status to general service seem to indicate that, with the passing of the order in council itself, no actual compulsion may ever have to be resorted to?

The all-important fact is that the reinforcements will be neither insufficient nor delayed. Some members of this house wish to register again their opposition to the legal extension of the locality of service of these N.R.M.A. men. I refer, of course, to the subamendment of the hon. member for Mercier. But a majority is apt to be recorded against that subamendment, and if such should be the case I appeal to them to accept that democratic decision in a democratic way. I am sure they can do so without accepting the concept of democracy which is sometimes asserted, the concept that it is both a legal right, and a proper exercise of that right, for the majority to assert its will at all times and in all occasions regardless of the feelings and views of the minority and of the reasons for such feelings and views. That is not my concept of the kind of democracy suited to free men; the kind of democracy for which the free nations are waging this war. It is not the kind of democracy which was envisaged by the fathers of confederation; or not the kind of democracy which will bring to full fruition the constitution that unites in one nation the various elements which make up our Canadian people.

The will of the majority must be respected and it must prevail. But I trust that, here in Canada, the majority will always, as it is doing in this case, assert that will only after giving due consideration to the feelings and views of the minority and to the reasons for such feelings and views, and then only to the extent to which the majority is sincerely convinced that the general interests of the whole body politic require that it be thus asserted.

Much feeling has been stirred up over the issue now before this house. We each of us have our own views as to how and why this has come about, but whatever be those views and whatever be the causes, yes, and whenever there may be room for blame and recriminations, there has come into existence a real and grave situation which had to be met and which had to be dealt with.

Believing as I do that the majority in this house, after giving its best consideration to the facts which have been brought to light in this long and earnest debate, is sincerely convinced1 that the passing of this order in council P.C. 8891 was necessary to the proper conduct of the affairs of the Canadian body politic as a whole, and believing as I do that whenever the majority, after full consultation and mature deliberation, reaches a conclusion of that kind, it is proper the minority should accept it and loyally assist in carrying it out, I appeal to all the members of this house, whatever may have been their individual views-whether to do more or to do less than the order in council provides-to unite and' to assert to the men overseas that this nation, from one ocean to the other, stands pledged to a victory that will be decisive and that will endure.

Mr. Speaker, we have been urged in the course of this debate to keep our eye on the ball. We must keep our eye on the ball, but

the ball is the decisive and enduring victory itself. And decisive and enduring victory still requires as well both the heroic efforts of our navy, our army and our air force, and the full and continuing cooperation of all our farmers, fishermen, foresters and miners; all those who toil in our shipyards, our factories, our munitions plants, our transportation systems, our laboratories, and our administrative offices; all the members of our national war finance committees, yes, and all those to whom they make their periodical appeals for further funds. There is still a job for each and every one of us to do, and it can be done only through the united efforts of us all, whatever be our individual views about the best methods to raise men for military service overseas.

Let us neglect nothing that is necessary for victory, but on the other hand let us strive to avoid1 doing or saying anything that is not really necessary and that might destroy or impair the unity which has made and is still required to make our efforts strong and constant and successful.

Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): To support the administration in its motion-

That this house will aid the government in its policy of maintaining a vigorous war effort.

-gives no indication of where an hon. member stands on the vital question of reinforcements for overseas. It is purposely designed to mean all things to all people. It implies a complete trust in the government, a government whose policy is diametrically opposed to what it was on November 22, 1944, when this house resumed its sitting. Then the government was

War Effort-Government Policy

against sending fully-trained draftees overseas. Now it has accepted the principle and will send a token reinforcement of draftees. One is asked to support this government, right or wrong. Even the former minister of national defence (Mr. Ralston) does not have confidence in the government; he has confidence only in a few members of it whom he is trusting to dominate the council, supported as they will be by public opinion which apparently must be kept at fever heat. It is to be regretted that the country must continue to emphasize its differences. Already through the refusal of the government to send needed reinforcements overseas the Liberal government have imperilled the carrying on of a vigorous war effort. How can my Liberal friends on the government benches have confidence in the present government to maintain a vigorous war effort which His Majesty's loyal opposition has for the moment forced upon it?

The Progressive Conservative amendment calls for maintaining a vigorous war effort by the passing of a forthright order in council based on the following amendment, namely:

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

The public and the troops overseas will be satisfied with nothing less than a positive order in council giving Canada one army just as it has one navy and one air force. Not only have we two armies, but the N.R.M.A. army is now split up into those who have to go overseas and those who do not. As the former minister of national defence, the hon. member for Prince said, I believe the time has come when the proper course is to make all N.R.M.A. men subject to the obligation to serve overseas.

How can one support an administration which is at sixes and sevens within itself, which is divided no one knows where, when or how, and as I shall endeavour to show shortly, is not a government in the proper sense because there is no cabinet solidarity or collective responsibility about it whatsoever. A humble reader of "Pilgrim's Progress" will remember that is it impossible to have confidence in Mr. Facing-Both-Ways. One further point that I should like to deal with at the end of my remarks is perhaps the single one which differentiates the stand which I take from that so ably put forward by the hon. member for Prince, namely, danger of a wartime election in Canada to the sending of reinforcements overseas. If Liberal members of this house will examine the Progressive

Conservative amendment they will find that there is not a word in it that is not demanded by the great majority of the people of Canada. Can you go back to your constituencies and explain your position if you do not support that amendment? The delay in sending reinforcements, the forced overnight change of policy, the uncertainty of enforcement of the new policy owing to the strange mixture in the present cabinet-all these things are well known to your constituents. Will you refuse to represent the wishes of your constituents as well as the wishes of the great majority of the people of Canada? Perhaps you will say that the policy of the Liberal government is just what is contained in our own amendment. That is what the hon. member for Prince says he and his trusted colleagues are going to make it. We have no copyright, sir, on the ideas contained in the amendment. Make them government policy and I for one will continue to support that policy.

We came here on the matter of reinforcements for overseas. Many of us had evidence of the need beyond any possible doubt. We listened to the account of the situation, to the account of the means of providing trained reinforcements. The former minister, the hon. member for Prince, said at page 6667 of Hansard:

When I left the cabinet the figures showed that there would be a considerable shortage by the end of December; I mean a shortage in the strength of the units themselves, with no pools whatever.

The volunteer man-power barrel had been so scraped that the last 4,500 men had been raised as follows: (a) accelerating the dispatch of 1,500 infantry; (b) sending directly overseas 1.500 other arms to be remustered over there; (c) demoting N.C.O's to the number of 750 and giving them the pay of their former rank; and (d) using 750 infantry tradesmen and giving them trades pay although using them as general duty men. Out of the 60,000 N.R.M.A. personnel in Canada there were 16,000 trained infantrymen and those were the only available reinforcements to meet the emergency. That was the situation. The loyal opposition, the country at large and particularly the women of Canada forced the hand of the government, proved the sham of the last attempt to cause draftees to go active, and on November 23 the order in council was passed authorizing and directing the Minister of National Defence to send

16,000 draftees overseas. It was not until November 24, however, that the house was assured that units of the N.R.M.A. personnel had been designated for overseas service and

War Effort-Government Policy

that reinforcements would go immediately. Whether or not they finally become volunteers has no bearing on the immediate necessity.

We are asked to vote confidence in what? In a government headed by a Prime Minister who refused to send needed' reinforcements overseas; who would risk a further indefinite attempt to make an impossible voluntary system work after five years of trial and exhaustion; who if the attempt failed would, in the words of his former minister, "give no assurance that draftees would be sent as reinforcements"; a Prime Minister who quibbled about the meaning of "necessary" and "if advisable." Both his former minister and the people of Canada thought they understood what "necessary" meant, and certainly the boys overseas knew what it meant. His attempts to becloud he issue by raising extraneous matters, such as when the cabinet was informed of the necessity, the alleged breaking of the privy council oath, et cetera, fail to forgive him his refusal to recognize the urgent necessity for reinforcements when that necessity was pointed out. Can we have confidence in a Prime Minister who even in an all-out war effort refuses to recognize the principle of equality of service, even as he did in 1917; who, like the present Minister of National Defence, accepts the principle of voluntarism as an article of faith? We do not believe in overnight conversions brought about by public pressure. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". How can we have confidence that a policy diametrically opposed to their fundamental beliefs will be honestly administered and fully carried out by the Prime Minister and his Minister of National Defence? What is the position of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Ralston) ? At page 6675 of Hansard he said:

. . . I certainly would have registered the

strongest protest possible against the halfhearted piecemeal method adopted. I would have pointed out that, once the decision was made to secure the service of N.R.M.A. men, 'once it was extended overseas, that decision should not apply to any one group of men in the N.R.M.A. but should apply to that force as a whole. To apply it just to part of the force was to perpetuate the system of two different armies for Canada.

The former minister urged the passing of one order in council, not four as have been passed already with more to come, to place all soldiers in Canada on the same footing. It is true that the principle of sending draftees overseas has been laid down and accepted, but has the government promised that furthur numbers will be sent as required? Having no reliance in the leader of the government and none in many of his former colleagues, on what is the hon. member for Prince relying?

He says:

Public opinion has made itself felt so powerfully that it could not be disregarded. The resolute stand of certain former colleagues in the cabinet has put that mighty influence into positive action.

Who are these certain farmer colleagues? Is the hon. member for Prince willing that the whole country should rely on his trust in a small handful of undesignated ministers? I think that is too great a responsibility for even him to assume. Is he not taking too much upon himself when he says:

... I myself will hold the government-and particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence-to strict account for carrying out vigorously and without wavering their declared intention to reinforce the army with well trained men from the N.R.M.A. to the fullest and fastest extent possible.

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

That sentence does not begin with "I myself".

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

Does anything hang on that?

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

Certainly. It begins, "this house and the people of this country."

Topic:   QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLUTION
Subtopic:   THE WAR
Sub-subtopic:   POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING VIGOROUS WAR EFFORT-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Permalink

August 12, 1944