NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I
should like to direct a question to the associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Power):
1.	Has a regulation been issued by the Department of National Defence denying leave to members of parliament on active service in Canada who may desire to attend parliamentary sessions?
2.	Would the minister care to tell the house the nature and purpose of any such regulation and if a similar regulation is in operation in Great Britain?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Associate Minister of National Defence):: My hon. friend was
good enough to give me notice of these questions.
If I may be permitted to speak for the senior service, there are no members of parliament in the navy. With respect to the air force, an order has been issued-not a regulation-to the effect that no special leave will be granted to members of parliament which will take them away from their train-

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
ing. It is however possible on request that members of parliament may obtain from two to four days for the purpose of attending parliament should that be necessary.
With regard to the army, there is an order, issued on January 23, addressed "To district officers commanding, all military districts":
Members of parliament and provincial legislatures appointed to active service units.
Leave of absence.
I am to inform you that such members of the federal parliament and provincial legislatures as may have been enrolled in units called out for .active service, will be permitted, so long as their units remain in Canada, if they so desire, to attend the sessions and be granted leave of absence without pay and allowances for the periods of such absence.
To sum up: With respect to the navy, at the moment no members of parliament are in the service. With respect to the air force, no special leave is granted to attend the sessions of parliament. With respect to the army, there is an old regulation to the effect that if they do attend the sessions of parliament they will do so without obtaining pay and allowance.
As regards the rest of the question, I am not familiar with the practice that obtains in Great Britain.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It was understood yesterday that we would not to-day resume the debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) but would proceed with the special order and continue the debate on the address. If therefore the house is agreeable I shall ask that we proceed to that order.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Brooke Claxton 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. Hanson (York-Sunbury) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to detain the house for a brief period of time in order that I may sum up my impressions with respect to this protracted debate.
The debate proper started three weeks ago to-day, and we have listened to progress reports from eight ministers of the crown.
I had almost expected a ninth, because we were hoping to hear from the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Mackenzie) all last week. I think perhaps some word is due from him with respect to what is proposed to be done for men who went overseas with the Canadian active service force or those who did not go overseas and have now been discharged from the army. I understand they number about
15,000,	and men are being let out every day. They do constitute a real problem for Canada, for the government and for the communities in which they live. It would appear to me that a statement should be made by the Minister of Pensions and National Health as to the government policy. I understand that a policy has been laid down and is crystallized in a lengthy order in council, which I have endeavoured to study but which I think is not clearly understood by the country. Therefore if a convenient time could be arranged for a statement from the Minister of Pensions and National Health in this regard I think it would be of some importance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend allow me to say that the Minister of Pensions and National Health has unfortunately suffered from an attack of flu during the past week and for that reason was prevented from being in the house. He was here yesterday and hoped to be able to speak. When he found he was not in shape for speaking he so informed me and intimated that he would speak to-day. I received word from the minister this morning that he did not think it would be possible for him to be in the house this afternoon. He hopes however to be able to make a statement before the week is out. If he himself is unable to do so, a statement will be made by one of the other ministers covering the subject raised.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite
appreciate that, and that will be satisfactory-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I think the hon. leader of the opposition will appreciate what I am going to say. We have now before us a motion, an amendment and a subamendment. The leader of the opposition has already spoken on the main motion and moved his amendment. Citation No. 410 of Beauchesne reads:
Amendments to the address are moved by way of additions thereto. A general debate may take place on the address, but when an amendment is proposed the discussion should be strictly confined to the subject matter of the amendment.
I take it from the remarks the leader of the opposition has already made that he proposes to discuss the main motion and whatever may have subsequently come before the
606	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
house, but according to the citation I have quoted it is not in order at the present stage of the debate to discuss other than the terms of the subamendment. If I permit the leader of the opposition to engage in a general discussion in regard to all that has taken place I shall have to permit other hon. members of the house to do so, which would be contrary to the rules. Any other hon. member could take the same position and again discuss the main motion. I therefore desire to call the attention of the leader of the opposition to the rule and to point out that so far as relevancy is concerned any remarks at the present stage should be addressed solely to the subamendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that was my intention, and my interpretation of the subamendment is that it is of very wide character and will allow very wide latitude.
I am glad to have the Prime Minister's undertaking that a statement will be made in connection with the important matter to which I have alluded.
The subamendment to which Mr. Speaker has so properly called my attention is so wide in its scope, having to do with the financing of the war and the general attitude thereto, that I am fully conscious that I am within my right in discussing what contributions have been made to the debate by ministers on previous occasions, and my remarks will largely be confined thereto.
Speaking in this debate prior to the moving of the subamendment I asked the government to give to the people of Canada a clear, truthful, factual and honest statement, free from propaganda and partisanship, so that we might examine it and know the nature and extent of Canada's war effort. I am asking myself to-day, and I ask hon. members of this house who have listened to those reports in the intervening days, how far they measure up to the requirements, judged by the standard to which I have alluded. I am bound to say that I personally listened to them with mixed feelings, and, may I say, with a sense of frustration and futility. And I am of opinion that this feeling must have been present in the minds of a large number of supporters of the government who have taken part in this debate, because we have listened from time to time to private members in this house supporting the administration who have given evidence not only of their desire to assist the government in its war effort, but of the absolute lack of facility and opportunity to make a contribution.
Many of the statements made by the ministers were factual; many were not. In my view there was less evidence of propa-

ganda intended to bolster up the government's position than in the statements to which we listened in the month of July last. For that I am truly grateful.
But still there is discernible most subtle evidence of propaganda, and that I believe is the effect on the mind of the public. There was throughout, with the possible exception of one address, a total failure to adopt and promote a more realistic attitude towards the war. May I at this juncture-


Mr. POULIOT:: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to define what he means by "a more realistic attitude towards the war"?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
afraid I could not explain it to the hon. member, and I do not think I shall take the time of the house to make the attempt.
May I at this juncture refer to an address delivered last night in the city of Toronto by the premier of Ontario, in which he made a plea for a more realistic war attitude on the part of this government, and in which he turned his guns on a tight little group turning out propaganda in Ottawa. In that address he referred to the fact that Canadians have been told by the press agents of the government that an all-Canadian squadron flying all-Canadian Spitfires was organized and fighting in England. He went on to say:
Not one of these pilots had been trained as Canadian flyers. Many of them went over there after we turned down the empire training scheme. They paid their way over or worked their way over and were trained by the Royal Air Force.
It is to this type of propaganda that we have to read or listen to that I take objection. It is not factual.
May I here pause to remind the house and the country that on September 4 last the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) in opening the campaign for the second war loan, referred with great pride to the fact that a squadron of flyers on the other side had flown Hurricane planes made in Canada by Canadian working men in Canadian factories. To me that was an astonishing statement, because I had not understood that anything of the sort had been attempted in Canada. I had been following this question of aeroplane construction in Canada for some months and I knew that the most we could claim was that these Hurricanes had been assembled in Canada, but that the major parts had been made elsewhere. Now it is that kind of propaganda that in my view is calculated to lull the Canadian people into a false sense of security as to our war effort. And I leave with members of this house and with the country the thought that we should

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
not be fed with statements of that kind, which are not factual and are not based on the naked truth.
I believe the lack of realism on the part of the government's war effort was in a measure corrected yesterday when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) brought down his first budget of the session. A careful perusal of his remarks and of the resolutions which he proposed, portions of which in my view were long overdue, will bring to the Canadian people a realization of what I have long visualized as necessary.
It will be recalled that as long ago as last July, after the fall of France, I called upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to declare a state of national emergency in Canada. My theory then was that we would have to shock the Canadian people into a realization of the seriousness of the situation. What did we get? We got the national registration, and we got the mobilization act. The first measure has been used as a basis for the improvised thirty-day training scheme. But has it been used in connection with the mobilization of labour? Has it been used in connection with the mobilization of the material assets of this country? If so I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely no evidence of any such use having been made of it. And with respect to the thirty-day training plan and the mobilization act itself, was that anything more than an improvisation to ward off attacks on the government? Was it more than a half-way measure, the importance and value of which only time will tell? I suggest that it was only this.
I shall not pursue at this time the theme of yesterday's budget, except to say that in my view the government has announced some measures which should have been put into effect some time ago. In some respects it has not gone far enough, and I submit that there are serious omissions. Our exchange position is serious, I think much more serious than the Minister of Finance intimated to the country yesterday, and perhaps he was wise in not telling the whole story. He must have information that is denied to me, but I do say to the house and to the country that I have sufficient information at my command to lead me to think that the situation is serious, and that if we are to maintain anything like the present equilibrium we shall have to go far beyond the $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 which was indicated as the objective of yesterday's budget.
May I now attempt a brief review of the statements made by the various ministers, dealing first wfith that of the Prime Minister.
In his prepared speech delivered on November 12, instead of giving the Canadian people
factual information as to a concerted war effort the Prime Minister took an hour and a half to tell the Canadian people his views on the international situation as it had developed in the last few months. It was all very interesting, but I submit that it was not what the Canadian people were looking for. They are intelligent; they know for themselves what is the international situation. We did not expect the Prime Minister to deliver a review of the recent history of European developments or international developments; rather were we asking for a factual statement in a concrete way as to what he and his government were doing to help win the war. Because of that many of us were disappointed; and after reading newspaper comment from one end of the country to the other I believe the Canadian people were disappointed.
In my view, however, there was one outstanding omission from the Prime Minister's review of international affairs, having regard to the declarations contained in the speech from the throne and subsequent declarations. I ask him now: What, if any, are the commitments of this country to the United States qua Ogdensburg?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: None.


Mr HANSON (York-Sunbury):: All right; that is a very good answer. There are no commitments, and I am perfectly satisfied with that. But if there were commitments we ought to be told what they are. In the course of his remarks the Prime Minister took to himself great credit-and I do not deny it to him -for having built up a spirit of friendship with the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, Mr. Speaker, he is entitled to that; I do not for a moment deny it. I will go further and say that it is of the very greatest importance at this time, and I said so at Toronto. I said at Toronto that the Ogdensburg conversations were capable of a great and noble purpose, and I have never said anything that would contravene that statement. We have no commitments; that is the statement made to-day. Well, I am not for a moment questioning the Prime Minister's word, but I am rather curious. I should like to bring to the attention of this house and of the country the fact that the Prime Minister's coadjutor- that may not be the proper word-his confidential secretary, the talented Mr. Brocking-ton, recently made a speech before the American Bar Association at Philadelphia.


An hon. MEMBER:: Good speech.
608	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was a grand speech; I wish I could make so eloquent a speech. As a pure piece of eloquence it was in a class by itself, and I told him so. But during the course of that speech he made a statement-whether it grew out of the exuberance of the occasion or whether the walnuts and the wine were too much for him I do not know-in which he referred to a "pact" between this country and the United States. Now that I have the Prime Minister's statement that there are no commitments I am concluding that Mr. Brockington had dined too well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, Mr. Speaker, knowing Mr. Brockington as I do I think my hon. friend ought immediately to withdraw that remark.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then may I put it this way-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I believe my hon. friend will be prepared to withdraw it, knowing Mr. Brockington as well as he does.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have Mr. Brockington's letter. I am not going to read it to the house, but in it Mr. Brockington told me he was not authorized to make the statement. But he was very close to the Prime Minister, and I wondered why he made it if there were no basis for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Anyone who
is close to me is not, I trust, deprived of his right to say what he wishes or to draw inferences of his own, and I must not be held responsible for every word that is uttered by those who may be close to me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree
with what the Prime Minister says, and Mr. Brockington was speaking on his own. If it is too strong a statement to say that he had dined too well, I cheerfully withdraw it; but that statement was made by Mr. Brockington; it received wide publicity both here and in the United States, and the general public concluded that there was a pact. Now the Prime Minister's statement to-day washes that all out, and I am content to leave the matter where it is.
Then may I ask the Prime Minister one further question in this regard. Has any report been made by the joint committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; several.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Several
reports have been made. Are we to be provided with copies of those reports, or are they considered to be confidential?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows, those reports relate to matters which affect the security of this continent. They could not be made public without the consent of the government of the United States as well as the consent of our own government. Speaking for Canada I would say that as they relate to the defence of Canada and disclose information which would be of service to the enemy, they will not be made public.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very
well. I find no fault with that attitude. I simply sought to know the facts: had a report been made. Now we are apprised of the fact that several reports have been made, and we can well leave the matter there.
The second minister to address the house was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I may say I listened with interest to his story of his trip to England, to his report on the arrangements he had made for the purchase by Great Britain of bacon and other supplies, and to his prognostications on wheat. Later on I had the good fortune to listen to his radio address and his observations with regard to skilled labour in Canada, and the necessity for training men for warfare as opposed to training men for essential industry. That is a matter with which I shall deal later.
I have just this to say with respect to the bacon agreement. Three times I have asked to have this agreement tabled. Twice we have been put off. No one is competent to speak with respect to this agreement unless he has seen it, read it and digested it. I cannot do so, for that reason. But it seems to me that two or three facts emerge. First of all, England is to take larger quantities at lower prices. There are to be smaller Wiltshire sides and more pigs for less money. Is that a fair deduction?


Mr. GARDINER:: No, not quite.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to refer to the effect the agreement has had on the bacon producers of eastern Canada. The question of mill feeds is of major importance to them in their bacon production. I have been told, and we all know it is a fact, that mill feeds have increased in price steadily during the past few months. The reason assigned is greater demand for mill feeds in the United States. Well, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the price of mill feeds has gone so high, having regard to transportation costs, that in eastern Canada our bacon producers cannot afford to buy mill feeds to finish their hogs.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Richard Burpee Hanson: How do I know?-because I keep in touch with the people in that industry, and I get my information from sources similar to those from which the hon. member could get it, if he were to put his ear to the ground, or were to make intelligent inquiries. I am told in my province that with the price of mill feeds as high as it is to-day they cannot produce bacon for the price offered.
I am not suggesting that England should offer a higher price. That is their business. But I do suggest to the government that because the farmer in eastern Canada cannot produce at the present cost of mill feeds, something should be done for him. I understand that recently an order has gone out pegging the price of mill feeds. Well, better late than never; but I say it should have been done before. Our millers are not now suffering from the processing tax.
Nevertheless I am among those who do not think that we should exact the last cent from Britain. I do not think that Canada as a nation should become rich at the expense of our distressed brethren across the seas. On the contrary I say we should not haggle with England over prices of foodstuffs-and bacon is fourth in their list of necessities. Because of the other conditions to which I have referred, the farmer is producing below the cost of production. And I do suggest to the government that something ought to be done to assist the bacon farmers in this country. Just what the measure of that assistance should be I am not in a position to advise. I am not a technical agriculturist, and the Minister of Agriculture is. But I invite him to give consideration to the plight of the bacon producers in eastern Canada, with a view to seeing at least that they may get back a new dollar for an old one.
I am bound to tell this house that from information which I have from the other side of the water there is a feeling in England that Canada is seeking to make money out of the war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nonsense.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
bound to tell my right hon. friend there is that feeling in England, and we should at *once endeavour to dissipate it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That feeling [DOT]certainly is not entertained by the government in England.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government in England would never say anything. The government of the United Kingdom would never say anything-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Or the people of England.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -that
would be offensive to the people of Canada. The people in England are thankful for all that is being done, and they will continue to be thankful for all that is being done. But there is that feeling in England.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has reached me; and it is none of your business how I know. I am not here for crossexamination.


Georges Parent: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I say there is a feeling on the other side that Canada is seeking to make money out of the war, and we should do our utmost-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest my hon. friend should give the house some idea as to the source of information of that kind. We can value it only by its source.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I answer the Prime Minister by asking him a question. Is there any food commodity that we are shipping to Great Britain at the present time for which we are not exacting the market price?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about potatoes?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Potatoes? Well, my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) bombarded the minister when he was in England to sell New Brunswick potatoes, but he never got an answer to his cable.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct. He did get an answer to his cable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, he had not at the time I spoke to him. I will say this: the Minister of Agriculture did not sell any potatoes over there.


James Garfield Gardiner: No,-and because there was a million bushels more in Great Britain than they could eat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest we ought to do something to dissipate in England the feeling to which I have alluded, on the assumption that it exists.
I should like to refer only briefly to what the Minister of Agriculture had to say about wheat. He made a prophecy, and it was highly optimistic. I have seen certain reviews from western Canada with respect to that prophecy. There was one statement made by the premier of Manitoba. There is a review issued by the Sanford Evans statistical bureau, and also reviews from other well-informed

610	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
sources. I had intended to go into those reviews at greater length, but I shall content myself by referring only to the Sanford Evans statistical service, in which the minister's proposals and prophecies are analysed. All I can say is that it is based on the assumption that we shall consume more in Canada than we ever consumed in any single year of our history, that England will take more wheat than she ever took in any single year of her history, and that continental Europe, which is now overrun by the nazis, will in the days to come, and with the five-year plan, take more wheat than they have ever taken before.
The whole wheat speech of the Minister of Agriculture is part and parcel of the policy of the government to soothe the people of Canada, and especially the people of western Canada, into a false sense of security concerning the future of wheat in Canada.
I should like to refer briefly to the minister's broadcast on Sunday night, November 17. I enjoyed that broadcast. I pay him the compliment of saying that I have reread it. With a large portion of it I am entirely in agreement. It sounded a high note. Near the end of his speceh he said this:
I think it would be wise to stop much of this talk against military training for men who are making planes, munitions, arms and ships.
And further on he stated:
Factory managers who contend they cannot produce to capacity without interfering with the training of their men may have to be told by someone . . . that they . . . are not good enough for war time.
That was a threat to industry in Canada. I want to contrast that statement with a statement made during this debate, on Friday, November 15, by the Minister of National Defence, when he said:
I have said it before, and I say it again, that under present conditions it is essential to the completion of equipment and the completion of training of those large numbers of men we now have in the Canadian army, that the needs of war industry for man-power be not interfered with.
Here we have two members of the same cabinet, speaking in the same week from the same benches.


James Garfield Gardiner: And saying the same thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Two members of the government saying things diametrically opposed to each other. It would not be so bad if this matter were not so important. The Minister of Agriculture interjects a remark in an attempt to make satire out of it. I ask this question: who is right?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Both.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They cannot both be right because the statements are incompatible. I want to suggest that industry in Canada does not think that the Minister of Agriculture is right. Who is right? The Minister of National Defence, who knows the situation with respect to the training of man-power and the necessity for proper equipment, or the Minister of National War Services, who seems to know all things about everything?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that he added the word "their" to my statement. That word does not appear in the printed statement or in my speech of Sunday night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought it was checked, but I shall have it rechecked. I am prepared to take my secretary's transcript at the moment rather than the minister's word, but if it is not there I am ready to do him full justice.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The rules say otherwise.


James Garfield Gardiner: That word makes all
the difference in the world.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of National War Services made a direct attack on Canadian industry based on the isolated case of one company which did not refuse to cooperate, but which objected to having their young men trained at this time when they were needed in a key war industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: I rise to a question of privilege. I am sure the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) does not want to misquote me. I should like to say that I did not make the statement on Sunday night on the basis of anything having to do with one manufacturer. The facts as I know them with regard to that one manufacturer were not in my hands on Sunday night; I received them on Monday and Tuesday and later.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
immaterial. The fact is that the minister did make the statement, and thereby made a direct attack upon Canadian industry based on one isolated case. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to the house and to the country that this is a most unfair position for the minister to take in connection with Canadian industry. I recall distinctly and clearly at the time of the outbreak of the war that Canadian industry came to this government and offered to cooperate to the full extent of its resources. I make the further statement that the government was slow in indicating a willingness to

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
accept this cooperation, but industry in Canada has loyally assumed the great tasks imposed upon it by the circumstances which have arisen, and is fulfilling those tasks with the utmost efficiency. Industry has been told that it must not and cannot make big profits, and it is an astonishing thing that Canadian industry should have been subjected to an attack by the Minister of National War Services.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house, that these diametrically opposed positions indicate that the government went about the business of making war without having anything like a comprehensive plan of cooperation. It is because there is no such plan that there is no real coordination, that ministers like the Minister of National War Services adopt one attitude and the Minister of National Defence adopts another.
May I turn briefly to the statement of the Minister of National Defence. We are all delighted to know that he has arrived safely in England, and I look forward with a great deal of confidence to his return with a coordinated plan, the result of the interchange of views with the British war ministry. I am sure that as a result of his visit there will be coordination between Canada's and Britain's war efforts. I know the Minister of National Defence and I feel quite sure that he would not go over there unless he wanted to know and do what was best in the common effort.
I listened to the minister's report with a great deal of interest. To a large degree it was factual, but it left many things to be desired.
May I pause here to say something which perhaps I should have said on November 12. It will be recalled that in his speech before the Canadian club at Ottawa Major-General Crerar indicated that the period of training was limited to thirty days because, for one reason, and aside altogether from the question of lack of equipment, it was desired to inculcate a sense of national obligation into a part of our young nationals. That was probably true to a degree in some parts of Canada, but not in every part. Our young men had a sense of national obligation in a very large measure, but they found that there was no outlet for that sense of national obligation. That theory was borne out by the announcement of a change of policy by the Minister of National Defence for Air. During this very debate he stated that hereafter the department over which he had the honour to preside would go out looking for airmen, rather than having airmen come
14873-39}
looking for them. I thought that was all to the good, and I applauded that change in policy.
I believe there is no lack of a sense of national obligation on the part of our young nationals. But if there be, and Major-General Crerar certainly appeared to be the spokesman of the government on that occasion, why should there be? I put this question to the house: why should there be a lack of a sense of national obligation on the part of our young nationals in many parts of Canada? Is it that they have not been properly taught during the last twenty-five years to have a. sense of obligation? I do not know. I am asking the question. I am wondering if it is because of bad leadership or false leadership, in the past.


An hon. MEMBER:: In the past is right,


Richard Burpee Hanson: I certainly have nothing to retract for 1917, but there ought to be some retraction by somebody in connection with what took place between 1919 and 1940. While the Minister of National Defence did not say so 'in express terms, I gathered, and I hope I am right, that he made the promise to this house and to the country that the thirty-day training plan would be extended to four months. Now, that is exactly in accordance with what I advocated from my place in this house, and if it be so, it is worth while. I am not going to thresh over the old straw. I suggested then that thirty days' training was insufficient, that four months would be better; and if the minister comes to that point of view I am grateful, and I think that all of us who have thought about this ought to be grateful for the change in the plan.
Then the minister told us that hereafter promotions to commissions would come from within the ranks. That would appear to me to be a change of policy, but a good change so far as it goes. As long ago as the 8th of August there was issued from the three Departments of National Defence and signed by the three ministers a letter, or a publication-whatever you have a mind to call it-headed "Canada's War Effort". It deals with appointments, promotions, transfers, and so forth, in the armed forces; government works and undertakings, and government works being carried out by contractors. In the first part, part A, appointments, promotions and transfers in the armed forces, it is indicated that the Minister of National Defence thought that appointments, promotions, transfers, and so forth, in the armed forces should be guided by the general army orders then in effect; and he asked members of parliament not to recommend young enthusiastic men for commissions. I have no doubt that every hon. member, from
612	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
*whatever part of the country, has been pressed from time to time to advance the name of somebody for a commission in Canada's armed forces, and I have no doubt that most if not all have yielded to the persuasions which were brought to bear upon them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may
be, of course, that there are exceptions, but it is a pretty strict member of parliament who will say to the son of his friend, "No, I won't recommend you for a commission." It is human nature to do it, and I think that down in our hearts we shall all admit that most of us have done it. I have done it with the utmost good-will where I thought the young man was deserving; and because I have done that thing, -1 am taking the onus on myself, and other hon. members can take it on themselves if they will. Because that was ithe state of affairs I welcomed the issue of this circular letter. In a measure I was sorry it had not been issued before.


Charles Gavan Power: May I point out to my
hon. friend- that the section he mentions had been issued in November, and the particular regulation to which he refers-routine order No. 70-had been in existence, so far as I know, since long before the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Routine
order No. 70 was, of course, in existence, but may I suggest to the hon. gentleman that so far as most of us were concerned it was more observed in the breach than in the performance. This was a perfectly proper circular letter, it must have been issued for a reason, and the reason must have been the pressure which was being brought to bear upon the minister.


Charles Gavan Power: It was simply a reiteration
of what had already been issued by the late Mr. Rogers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
reiteration, but the statement itself indicates that it was desirable to avoid political or personal favouritism in the conduct of the war activities, and therefore it was issued at this time, and I am bound to say that it was the first time the matter had come to my attention, because I was not here in October of the previous year. But I am commending the minister for it, not criticizing him for it.
I am not going into the other parts of the circular, except to say that I thought it would be a grand thing if the government would put into force, in every department connected with the war, the policy there enunciated. I made that known to the Prime ^Minister, and I regret to say that I did not - get the response I thought I would get. fJiTr. R. B. Hanson.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What statement is that? My hon. friend wrote me a letter making certain general charges. I asked him if he would make them specific.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I made
no charges. I suggested that this circular was a grand thing and that the policy therein enunciated ought to be carried out throughout the various departments of the government. The Prime Minister wrote back and said that if I would give him specific instances of wrongdoing he would have them investigated. Well, life is too short. Whatever I have had of a major character in respect of wrongdoing in connection with government contracts, and the cases have not been many, I have gone to the Minister of National Defence for Air. Recently I told him the story in one specific case, and I am not going to refer to it further. But if that is not cooperation with the government and with the minister I should like to know what it is. I am sure the minister will bear me out.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. gentleman told
me the story, but I knew it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the minister knew it. I found that out when I saw him, but I want to know if the action I took at that time was not the correct action to take.


Charles Gavan Power: Quite.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to say to the membership of this house that I have no use for scandal, and I do not want to be mixed up in it. I am not a detective for anybody. But I am being flooded with letters in that regard, and when I find something which I think is of importance I intend to go with it to the appropriate minister. If it were peace time perhaps my attitude would be a little different.
Now with respect to promotions from within the ranks: that, I suggest, is a change of policy, and I am not condemning it, but I should like to know what the minister proposes to do with these young men who, at considerable expense to themselves and to the country, have taken the Canadian officers' training corps course with a view to getting commissions. How are they to be integrated into the service as commissioned officers? Or have they to go into the ranks? Remember that these are university men.


An hon. MEMBER:: That does not make them any better.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not make them any better, but it does not make them any worse, and they went into this training on the theory that if they took

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
it they would be given commissions. Am I right in that assumption? I suggest to the minister that at some appropriate time he explain the position. I do not want to labour it further.
The Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) recently made a statement in this house, and I am bound to tell him, notwithstanding what he may have said, or thought, or thinks of me, that it was of a most encouraging character. This war is being fought largely in the air, and Canada will make and is making, in my view, a distinct contribution in the air to empire defence and towards winning the war. We began late, but I believe that real progress has been made. What a pity we did not begin two years ago! I suggest that air training in Canada became really effective only when the present minister took over and when he appointed Mr. Duncan as the deputy; and upon that I congratulate him.


Charles Gavan Power: You just copied that from "Mitch".


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not.


Charles Gavan Power: Try to be original.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not "copied that from Mitch" at all. I could say something concerning what "Mitch" said about the minister which would be rather flattering to him, and I could mention other things he said about other members of this government which are not so flattering. Does the Minister of National Defence for Air suggest that I should spread on Hansard this speech of Premier Hepburn?


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, no. I agree with some things in it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I regret I was not in the house when the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) made his speech. I have read it since. It was moderate. I am one of those who think that the Royal Canadian Navy has been doing good work with very limited means and equipment.
According to the minister we are to embark on a shipbuilding plan. It is said that we are to build destroyers and perhaps cruisers. Well, I think we are a little late in starting. It will be a long time before we are able to make any distinct contribution to the winning of the war with Canadian-built naval vessels. It is true that we built some mine sweepers and some coastal vessels, but, aside from assisting in convoys, our contribution has been meagre indeed.
And now shall I read to you what Mr. Hepburn says about it-or shall I leave it to
your imagination? No, I do not intend to read it. Hon. gentlemen have all read it and it is none too complimentary.
All Canadians, I believe, will be pleased to learn that the government has decided to reopen the naval college, thereby rectifying a mistake that was made by the government of my right hon. friend almost twenty years ago when they closed the college. We thus deprived our young Canadians who were looking forward to a naval career of having a college in Canada to attend. They had to go abroad. One fine young naval cadet in my own county went to England at the expense of his parents and entered a naval college there. Last spring I had the pleasure of announcing, through the courtesy of the Deputy Minister of Naval Services in this country, that he had in the whole field of cadets won the King's Dirk, but he had to go to England to acquire that honour.
The minister indicated that it was the policy of the government to build in the near future destroyers in Canadian yards. He stated, in my opinion very rightly, that we did not have the necessary experts here, and therefore he had communicated with the authorities in Great Britain to ascertain if they could furnish the necessary experts in naval construction.
I am at a loss to understand how the minister can expect to get these experts from England when one considers that in this great war every shipyard in England is driving at top speed not only in naval construction but also in the building of merchant cargo ships. Furthermore, all the naval guns and necessary armaments would have to be imported from England, and they surely are not procurable now. That is a pity, but I believe I am stating a fact when I say that we cannot hope to get any substantial number of naval experts to come to Canada and help us in this shipbuilding programme. I may be wrong; the minister may have other information; but it would seem to me that these men would not be procurable at this time.
There is another obstacle in the way, which I think it is my duty to point out to the minister, and that is that the cost of naval construction, either in war or in peace time, would be so excessive as compared with construction in the United Kingdom that for economy's sake we ought to consider whether we should not have these ships built in England. This question came up very acutely in the late twenties. The Lady boats were built in England because it was understood and agreed by the government of the day, and by all parties who took any intelligent interest in the matter, that it would cost at
614	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
least fifty per cent more to build them in Canada. That consideration still obtains. However, I suppose we shall have to consider the question of building steel ships in this country, sooner perhaps than we think. The necessity is there and it may be that even if we have to pay a higher price it would be good national policy to do so.
The minister quite rightly states that Canada ought to have a stronger and more efficient navy. Hence his reason for advocating a policy of construction of destroyers in Canada. I am not an authority on naval matters, neither is the minister, so far as I know. He has to take expert advice. I should like however to quote to him one of the greatest authorities the world has known-the late Admiral Sir John Jellieoe. When Sir John Jellicoe visited Canada in connection with naval matters in 1920, the minimum policy he recommended for Canada was to provide immediately for three light cruisers, six destroyers and four submarines. We have at the present time twelve destroyers, and I am sure the minister will recognize that when he is considering a permanent policy it is not destroyers that we need but light cruisers and submarines and other craft. These light cruisers are armed with four 6-inch guns, antiaircraft guns and torpedo tubes. We all recall with a thrill of pride that it was three light cruisers of this type that defeated the German pocket battleship Graf Spee last December.
Destroyers are all right for a short distance when escorting convoys, but for proper protection a convoy must be protected by light cruisers; I think that is the experience of this war. Since this war began our convoys have very often been escorted not only by light cruisers but even by battleships.
There is one other matter to which I should like to allude in a discussion of our navy. I am sure we all appreciate the great responsibility that rests upon the shoulders of the minister as well as the director of naval service to see that no officers shall be appointed as destroyer commanders or to other senior posts unless they are fully qualified. To state that is to state a truism. No better naval officers exist in the world than Canadians when properly trained. Our merchant marine men indicate that. But a naval career, according to the best British standards, requires not only graduation from a naval college but long years of training afloat, first as midshipman, then sub-lieutenant and then lieutenant; and many years elapse before anyone can expect to be promoted to the rank of captain.
The late Lord Jellicoe stated, when he was in Canada on his naval mission, that it takes

nine years to make a good lieutenant gunner. I realize that when our naval service now have twelve destroyers, they must be sore pressed for officers, more especially for the senior commands, and I have confidence enough in both the minister and his officers to believe that they would not appoint Canadians to important senior commands unless they were fully qualified.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: That is the policy.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: We all
greatly regret the loss of life due to the unfortunate loss by collision of the Canadian destroyers Fraser and Margaree, and I extend my sympathy to all those whose brave relatives have lost their lives. I was wondering, however, and I ask the minister, why the captain of the Fraser, after she was lost, was not given command of the Margaree, which took her place, but, according to press reports, was really demoted and recalled to Canada. There must have been an official investigation. Of course we have had no report on the matter. It was unfortunate also that the Margaree was lost by collision, but I am not insinuating for one moment that the loss of these vessels was due to other than fortuitous circumstances or that there was any inefficiency on the part of our gallant Canadian commanders.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In order that there may be no misapprehension in the house or in the country, may I say that the captain of the Margaree, Commander Joseph Wilton Roy, had had twenty-four years' service in the navy and served in eleven or twelve ships before taking command of the Margaree. Commander Wallace B. Creery, of the Fraser, had served in fourteen ships and had twenty-six years' naval service behind him. From the point of view of experience both men unquestionably were well qualified to command ships.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not suggested that there was anything but unfortunate circumstances whereby these ships were lost. I did not know the late Commander Roy, but the house may be interested to know that his wife was, I think, a native of my city; at all events her grandfather lived there and was a distinguished member of the other chamber during his lifetime.
I want to devote a few minutes to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). We heard from him and got a wealth of information with regard to contracts let and commitments made; but we got nothing with respect to production and deliveries. The Prime Minister should tell the house and the country plainly what the

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
attitude of the government is with respect to this important matter. Are we or are we not to have information with respect to production and delivery? It may be that it is not in the public interest that this information should be given; if that is so it ought to be made quite clear to the house and the country, and the reasons given for the refusal.
One further thing, at the risk of returning to a prosaic matter, which the Associate Minister of National Defence called a " slimy " matter-are we to have unit prices?
I think the country will demand that. So far as I am concerned, unless I am shown that it is absolutely in the public interest that we should not have unit prices, I shall continue to press for them.
Speaking on a former occasion I requested specifically that parliament be informed as to what results had been attained with respect to production and deliveries, because we held the view, and I believe it is well founded, that it was the deliberate policy of the government, during the past session as well as during the interval since we adjourned in August, to endeavour to create, by general statements of what we are going to do in the future, the impression that all was well with our war effort in the way of production and deliveries. And if there is any doubt of that I will page Mr. Hepburn and see what he says about it. It was our view that the government has sought to lull and soothe the Canadian people into a false sense of security, and continues to do so. We believe that there is a danger behind such a position. Hence the amendment which I have had the honour to move in this house.
Therefore I felt impelled to ask the government that it cause to be set up immediately two select special committees, charged with the responsibility and the duty of investigating and reporting to this house, factually, objectively and truthfully, without bias and without partisanship, what our exact position is to-day (a) with respect to our fighting forces, military, naval and air, and (b) with respect to the production and delivery of all the important materials, equipment and supplies necessary to our war effort, so that the Canadian people might know the truth.
So far, such committees have not been set up. I indicated that I knew there were difficulties, and I would ask the Prime Minister, if he can and will, to tell the house what the attitude of the government is with respect to that. If the difficulties are such as cannot be surmounted then I have another concrete suggestion which I desire to lay before the house and the country. It is, in brief, that the government cause to be set up a select committee
on current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence and for other services directly connected with the war, and instruct such committee to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of government policies may be effected therein.
Now, it is all very well to say that we can get all this information on national expenditure through the public accounts committee. Theoretically that is correct. But the information which will be obtained through the public accounts idea will not be on current expenditure. It will relate only to the expenditures that have taken place in the previous year and as covered by the auditor general's report. Practically all the national expenditure for the war effort has taken place since March 31 last -or rather the great bulk of the contracts relating to national expenditure for war effort have been let since March 31, and inquiry before the public accounts committee will not be possible. That committee may _ examine only such things as are submitted to it. I am impelled to make this request for various reasons, hut more particularly because what I suggest has been done in England and, I am advised, with good results.
I hold in my hand a series of reports of a select standing committee of the British parliament which was set up under the authority of an order of reference made on December 12, 1939, while Mr. Chamberlain was still Prime Minister and while there was an official opposition. The order of reference contains this:
That a select committee be appointed to examine the current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence and for otheT services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
Then it goes on and appoints a committee of twenty-eight members-and not one of them is a member of the government; they are all private members, and so far as I read the list of names, none of them is of international prominence. The committee has the usual power to send for persons, papers and records, and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house, and to adjourn from place to place. It was to be in effect a continuous working committee to examine current expenditures for war purposes having regard to the announced policy of the government. It had the power to appoint subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters within the jurisdiction of the committee. Such subcommittees so appointed were empowered to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house,
616	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
and to adjourn from place to place. This select committee has been sitting almost constantly since it iwas set up. Its first report was made in January, and the last I have was made on August 21, 1940. Any hon. gentleman who peruses this report will see, I am sure, that it is serving a great national purpose-not in opposition to government policy, not to the detriment of government policy, but to assist government policy, and to see what if any economies can be attained by suggestions.
My view is that we ought to have something like that here in Canada. It is a way in which private members could contribute to the war effort. I have heard dozens of members who support the government bewail the fact that they could not do anything to help, and saying that private members ought to be in a position to do something to help.
So far the war effort of the government has been carried out on the line of a closed corporation, so far as members of parliament are concerned. I submit this to the government as a constructive proposal to which they should give some attention. I submit it in the utmost good faith, not by way of criticism but by way of being helpful to the government. We know that war is wasteful; we know there is great waste in this war, though I do not say intentional waste. I do believe, however, that a committee of private members of this house, sitting day in and day out during sessions and between sessions, could perform a very useful function in assisting the government at this time, and I commend this suggestion to hon. members. It will provide an outlet for the energies of the private members who are anxious about the war, who want to make a contribution, who were sent here by their constituents to make that contribution but who find themselves frustrated-yes, that is the word-because they have no outlet for their abilities and their capabilities.
I do hope that the Prime Minister will accept this suggestion, and before I leave the topic may I say to hon. gentlemen who will accept positions on the committee, if it be set up:	There is not only a real job to be
done, but a job which will tax your capabilities to the utmost. You will have to make substantial sacrifices in serving the state in this way, but it is a patriotic duty which I think some of you ought to perform. I believe a real contribution can be made in this way by private members.
Now I should like to make some little reference to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and I shall endeavour to keep away from the question of foreign exchange, which has become a major topic to be dealt with at another time.
The Minister of Finance gave an exhaustive discourse on orthodox finance. I have never criticized the principles of the government's war financing, because it was orthodox. I thought it was just what one would expect from the financial mentors of the minister. When I say that my hon. friends to my left can take it from me that I am in agreement with orthodox finance for war purposes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
I did not have to say that. I have not criticized the principles laid down by the minister, but I have, I hope in a constructive way criticized some of his methods and the taxation proposals contained in the last budget.
Let me say another word about the war loans. The minister has made a substantial denial that the last war loan was not a success, but I do suggest to the house and to the country that the acceptance by the minister of the proposal I made on that occasion, with respect to the next war loan, is a substantial confession that the last war loan was not handled in the right way. I do not wish out of hand to condemn the professional bond and investment dealers. They serve a very useful purpose in connection with war loans. They can get the big subscriptions, but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members of this house that they cannot get the individual investors interested in these loans. They showed their failure in connection with the last loan; so I think it is plain that the methods of both the professional and the amateur must be used. Therefore I congratulate the minister upon his change of heart in having accepted what I considered to be a constructive suggestion.
I criticized the last budget because of its income tax proposals with respect to individual taxpayers. I said then and I say now that there was no equality of sacrifice there. The well-disposed were unduly taxed, and the tax was thrust upon them with great suddenness and severity. The minister fell into what I considered a curious error when he interpreted my words "the well-disposed" to mean "the well-to-do." In my view the two terms are not synonymous; the well-disposed may not necessarily be the well-to-do. The minister comes from an old evangelical religious body. Has he never heard of the widow's mite? I am sure he has. I use that as an illustration to point out the error into which I think he has fallen.
I do suggest to the minister that there has to be a real effort in connection with these war loans. Now we are confronted with full page advertisements with respect
rMr. R. B. Hanson,]

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
to the war savings certificates. That is good; publicity is necessary and desirable, but we have to do something more. Yesterday I had a letter from a gentleman in the city of Saint John who is in charge of this work in the province of New Brunswick, one of the finest citizens of Canada, who will give voluntarily his service, his time and his private means to help put this over. He deplores the fact that the public has not responded; and that is the case, since we are not getting $2,000,000 a month from this source. Just what is the cure I do not know. There will have to be concerted action. In my own community the gentleman who has charge of this campaign tells me that he is all but throwing up his hands because of the lack of sympathy for this movement, even in that community.
We must do something to ensure the success of this campaign. If we are to attain the objective of $10,000,000 a month in war savings certificates some people will have to bestir themselves. I do beseech the members of this house to take action. Each is a leader of public opinion in his own community; that was indicated by the work done by the members in putting over the national registration. Let every one of us get behind the sale of these war savings certificates, for the honour of our own communities. Let us see if we cannot help the government put this thing over. It is a patriotic duty and one which I think every one of us ought to assume on his own account.
Now I should like to say just a word about the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty), to whose address I listened with a good deal of interest. The impression he left on my mind was that he was flying a kite to labour. He would have labour depart from its present standards for the duration of the war. I do not know what will be the response of labour. I believe it will be a patriotic response, but I think it will have to be made abundantly clear to labour that if it is to give up its present standards it shall be for the duration and for the duration only. Then I am sure labour will respond as it has responded in England.
I have just a word to say with regard to parliament adjourning until February 17. In my view the adjournment will be too long, but the Prime Minister has explained that in the view of the government it is necessary to take this long adjournment. I am glad to know, however, that it is upon the distinct understanding that should certain eventualities materialize, such as were outlined in the Prime Minister's statement of August 3 last,
in connection with the motion presented on that day, we will be called together sooner, and with that I am content.
I have been impressed, Mr. Speaker, by the appeal that has been made by private members of this house during the course of this debate, and particularly by members supporting the administration, that more use should be made of private members and of the standing committees of the house. There is, as I gather, a feeling of manifest uneasiness, a sense of frustration at the lack of functioning on the part of parliament itself. Well, I suggest to hon. gentlemen that this is true, and the fault is the government's, because the government has taken authority to do everything parliament used to do. That may be necessary in war time, but I do suggest that to a large degree we have abdicated our functions and that there has been too much delegation of power. There is manifest in the house a will to do on the part of the elected representatives of the people, and a complete failure in performance because of lack of opportunity. The government are carrying on the war effort, as it were, as a closed corporation, and hon. members are not satisfied.
But we of this party shall not falter. We shall, as opportunity offers, cooperate with the government along the general lines indicated when I spoke on November 12, and we shall do our best to get the results so urgently needed.
In passing may I refer to the observations of the hon. member for Victoria B.C. (Mr. Mayhew) who indicated that in his view my rededication of this party to the service of the state at this time was the highlight of my address of three weeks ago. He indicated, however, regret that I myself did not lay down a policy for a war effort. Well, I do not conceive that at this juncture it is my function or within my power to do that. Why do I say this? I say it for the obvious reason that no one can enunciate a policy unless he is briefed with the facts upon which to base a policy. The facts are not accessible to us-in fact they are denied to us.
Having regard to all the statements made by the ministers with regard to the government's war effort, certain things emerge. First, we have been served with reports similar in most respects to the progress reports which we heard last summer. I am bound to repeat that there is not as much propaganda in what we have listened to during these past three weeks as there was in the reports heard last summer, but their general tenor and purport is the same.

618	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
The second point which emerges is that there is abundant evidence that the government lacks a real war programme of production. Apparently the government has become seized of that position, because recently, as late as November 16, order in council 6601 was passed, setting up the war-time requirements board, under the chairmanship of an able business executive, Mr. H. R. MacMillan, and with a retinue of departmental officials. The whole success of this war-time requirements board will centre around the chairman. He is to become the "Sir Joseph" of the effort of the government. Whatever may have been said about the other "Sir Joseph", I say that he was the greatest business man of his time in Canada, and that he did wonderful work for the imperial munitions board. Mr. MacMillan is a capable man, and I wish him well.
Let us for a moment analyse the position with respect to this war-time requirements board. Section 2 of the order in council sets out the powers of the board, and I submit to the Prime Minister that they are entirely inadequate if the board is to do the maximum work it ought to do under this authority. Subsection (a) of that section provides for the securing of information; (b) provides for the coordination and analysis of such information; (c) provides for the formulation of such plans as may be necessary to ensure that war needs in order of importance shall have priority over all other needs. That is all to the good. There must be someone to say what shall have priority. Then, subsection
(d)	provides that the Department of Munitions and Supply and the controllers and divisions thereof, and any other departments of the government shall be kept informed by the war-time requirements board upon the matters previously referred to, such as production, the use of materials, manufacturing plants and facilities, transportation facilities, and the obtaining of statements of prospective needs of the fighting services.
The criticism I make-and it is a constructive criticism-is that the board has not sufficient power, and that everything must be referred back to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who still keeps control. I am serious in that criticism. That, I believe, is the weakness of the board. I am certain, however, that if he finds his efforts under the order in council thwarted by the lack of power, the chairman will apply for additional powers and get them, or know the reason why.
Looking over the whole picture it is quite apparent that in six months time the attitude of the government has undergone a marked
!Mr. R. B. Hanson.]
change in outlook. In May last the government had assumed a complacent attitude. That was certainly the feeling in the country and in the house; and if hon. members do not believe me I suggest that -they go back and read the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) in moving the address in reply at that time.
Then came the tragic trend of events in May and late June, the invasion of Norway, the fall of the low countries, and finally the fall of France and the epic of Dunkirk. Then, shocked by all this, we witnessed a series of hasty improvisations. What was the mobilization act? It was a hasty improvisation to ward off an attack on the government's war effort-or lack of effort. But the declarations at that time gave no possible evidence of a real war programme, and down to date we have not been told of a definite war programme. It is true that the staff officers have evolved a plan for the defence of Canada, whatever it is-but we are not told what it is. I do not think we Shall be.
We are told by the Prime Minister that during all the years that he attended imperial conferences it was laid down as a fundamental that the dominions were to take care of home defence. I can well believe that, because neither he nor anyone in his entourage at that time would ever consider doing anything else, and never at any time admitted any obligation to the principle of empire defence. Since the war all these preconceived ideas have gone by the board, and to-day, fifteen months after war started, the government is giving support to the theory of empire defence, notwithstanding what some of its supporters are saying in the country.
The difference between the Prime Minister and myself is that I want Canada to go ahead on a well-defined war effort, based upon our willingness and capabilities, and in conformity with empire requirements in the theatre of war, while he pursued, up to a certain point, a course based on a -theory of providing for our own defence first-in Canada. I am glad to think that force of public criticism and the tragic trend of events has, to a degree, reversed the situation. This, to me, is satisfactory, so far as it goes.
I have been told, and it stands to reason, that the greatest effort of a country situated as Canada is-an acknowledged belligerent- should be based on the theory that we should contribute to the utmost toward the winning of the war in the actual theatre of war-not here in Canada three thousand miles removed from the actual theatre of war, where our only effort would be required to repel invasion, and then only after the battle had been lost overseas.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
That is the advice that was given to the Prime Minister by a great soldier in Canada. I am pleased to think that in some degree the Prime Minister has come around to that way of thinking. In so far as he has done so he is, I think, to be commended.
I shall detain the house only a moment longer to say that I was disturbed by the Prime Minister's speech of yesterday. I do not believe he did justice to himself, and certainly he did less than justice to me. On Thursday last I spoke about my impressions with regard to the war situation. I spoke about the seriousness of that situation and, knowing of the Prime Minister's greater knowledge of what was taking place, I asked him to give the house a review of the position. At that time, in addition to stressing the seriousness of the situation, I asked him to indicate what, if anything, Canada could do at this juncture toward giving further aid and assistance, whether by way of men, materials, supplies or equipment.
On that occasion the Prime Minister stated he had had in mind making a statement to the house respecting the situation. He said, among other things:
I agree with my hon. friend in his view that the situation is a serious one. I think anyone reading the press would gather that opinion. I would also say that such information as the government itself is receiving the press would appear to be reflecting accurately. Any statement that I may have to make will be practically in accord with what has already appeared in the press.
I was happy at that reply. I thought it was an honest, spontaneous reply. I thought our minds were running in the same channel. But yesterday! What are we to think of the right-about-face of yesterday, the straight contradiction of the spontaneously expressed views of last Thursday? Mr. Speaker, no wonder I have at times a feeling of frustration at such an exhibition. Which is Doctor Jekyll and which is Mr. Hyde? No wonder the country is perplexed. Nevertheless, let us go on. Let us do the best we can for king and country.


Georges Parent: I did not interrupt the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) during his address, although I must say that at times the relevancy of his remarks was rather slender as far as the subamendment is concerned. I just want to point out that there are rules to be observed in the house. I realize that in these war days perhaps the rules may be relaxed a little, but I ask hon. members to remember that my duty is to see that the rules are observed. Therefore, I wish hon. members would observe them more closely.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks more closely to the subamendment than the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) kept his, but may I suggest respectfully that all members of this house are entitled to precisely the same treatment. The treatment accorded to one member of the house ought to be accorded generally to all members who speak thereafter. I make this suggestion with all due deference to you, Mr. Speaker.
The subamendment reads:
And this house further regrets the failure of the government to adopt a monetary policy that would permit a maximum war effort without either increasing debt or reducing the standards of living below that necessary for maintaining maximum efficiency.
It expresses dissatisfaction with the present system and a desire for the reform of that system. We of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation agree with those objectives, although we contend that the subamendment touches only the fringe of this great economic problem.
Last week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said that during this debate no member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had expressed any disagreement in principle with the government's financial policy. However, we have done exactly that in previous debates. For example, on September 9, 1939, I said:
We should not inflict on the generation that follows us the cost of another great war. And we must not permit an increase in the already almost intolerable burden of national and other public debt. We believe that there are untouched financial resources which the government may still tap, or resources that have been only partly tapped as yet.
Again on June 28, 1940, I criticized the budget proposals and suggested certain alternative methods by which the government might raise revenue for our war effort. It is because we recognize the need for a more progressive approach to the problem of war production and war financing that we support the amendment calling for a reformed monetary system. We believe that our financial system ought to be considered as the accountancy system of our economic life. We feel that if we produce goods and services, the *money should be available to distribute and encourage their flow.
Miss Dorothy Thompson is a bitter but well-informed critic of the nazi and fascist regimes, and I have no hesitation in quoting her, nor do I expect to be misunderstood when I do so. She said:
The Germans did not vote themselves four billion money units for defence. They voted -had voted for them-thirty thousand planes, so and so many guns, so and so many thousand
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

tons of reserves of oil and raw materials. The German economy is an economy of things and men; the allied economy is an economy of symbols: money. The German economy recognizes that all wealth is in goods, particularly in capital goods, and that these are not created by money, which is only the medium of exchange, but by the application of labour to materials. The aJlies had money, but failed to produce goods. The Germans had no money, but did produce them.
I submit that by those words Miss Thompson clearly placed before the people of the allied countries a fundamental economic truth which the German regime has prostituted for a diabolical purpose, just as the devil can quote scripture when it serves his needs. Although we may dislike the prostitution of that fundamental economic truth, yet in these days when we are considering the expenditure of large sums of money we ought to pay some attention to methods other than those we have been using to finance our war effort.
The truth is that all material wealth results from the application of labour to material things. Once we realize that, the path to a better and brighter economic system will become more clear to us all. As long as we have men and materials we ought to be able to devise a monetary system which will facilitate the flow of goods and sendees into the channels into which we desire them to flow.
I have the New Zealand Hansard on my desk and I should like to turn to a speech made by the minister of finance of that country, Hon. Walter Nash, on June 27, 1940. As reported on page 307, he had this to say regarding the monetary and financial policies of that country:
Provision for loan contribution by large investors will be made by the issue of loans with a currency of ten years or more in respect of which government stock will be issued in the usual manner. In the circumstances the government consider that these loans should be regarded as contributions to the war effort from the material assets of those with property and should accordingly be free of interest for a period of three years or until twelve months after the conclusion of the war, and thereafter for ten years at a rate of interest not exceeding 2J per cent. In this way the government proposes to raise within New Zealand not only the money required to be expended in this country, but also some portion of the amount necessary to meet expenditure abroad, thus relieving, so far as is possible, the drain upon the resources of the British government.
Mr. Nash then outlined his proposals for a compulsory loan from those with large accumulations of wealth, and the necessary legislation was subsequently adopted by the New Zealand house of representatives.
Last week the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) suggested a policy which will place a heavy burden upon labour. I submit, Mr. IMr. Coldwell.1
Speaker, that equality of sacrifice demands that a policy such as that outlined by the New Zealand minister of finance should be instituted here, and for the same reasons-to assist our own war effort and to help Great Britain in her economic and financial extremity.
Yesterday this was brought forcibly to our attention by the proposals that were made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and which we shall have the opportunity of discussing later this week. But, holding the views which I have presented, I submit it is incorrect to say that we agree in principle with the government's financial policy. We are indeed in sharp disagreement with it. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this house and throughout the country have stood for a different system.
Recently Mr. Herbert Morrison, Home Secretary in the British government, in the course of a speech in which he suggested- incidentally

definite war aims, as well as foreshadowed -a new monetary and economic system, made this significant statement:
If we are fighting only to end the nazi threat to our future, if we have no aim but to get back to pre-nazi Europe, we are chasing a will o' the wisp, and we shall fall into the mire. The roots of nazism are not all to be found in the original sin of the Prussian temperament: the roots of war lie deep in our present ways of living, and we have the chance now to dig some of them out. Upheavals and landslides there will be.
And, if I may interject this thought in
connection with the subamendment, one of these landslides will be against the present financial and economic system, sweeping it away and laboriously establishing order out of chaos, unless we at this time, when we have the opportunity, prepare now during the war to lay the foundations of a better and saner economic, financial and social order than we have known in the days that have gone by.
Mr. Morrison then went on to say this:
To-day, necessary measures to control our economic system in the interests of the community, and in the urgent cause of winning the war, are being resisted and attacked in the name of freedom. We need to be on our guard, evening -and morning, against this prostitution of a fine word. The freedom of private business is often another name for economic anarchy, which has always led to war-and always will.
May I point out that, while Mr. Morrison was speaking of economic aims, nevertheless, as a member of the British government he was not unwilling to place before the people of Great Britain some aims which can be interpreted as war and peace aims. He went on to say:
While we must be ready to surrender a measure of national sovereignty, we must maintain the cultural freedom of nations and a

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
proper measure of independence in their political life. We must cling to an ideal of government, whatever its actual form, as something which exists to serve peoples and not to dominate them.
Does our present financial system serve the people or does it to-day dominate the people? That is the question, it seems to me, which is involved in the subamendment.
And we must remember that this is no mere internal question, since the governments that dominate at home are often the peaeebreakers abroad.
Next, the nations must come together and tackle international economic problems, including the problem of colonial possessions, on international lines, even if this means the limitation of national sovereignty.
Then we must organize the industry, trade, commerce and raw materials of the world with the idea not of bolstering up the special privileges of any class or group, but of achieving a higher standard of life for all.
May I say that in my opinion that, too, is involved in the subject matter of the subamendment.
Next, we must insist upon achieving international control of arms manufacture and armed forces, once again giving up some of the old ideas of national sovereignty in order to bring that about.
Lastly-
He went on to say:
-the nations-victors, vanquished and neutrals alike-must agree that none will seek to be judge in its own cause. That each will submit its grievances and its quarrels to impartial judgment, and will abide by the outcome.
On that basis, Mr. Speaker, the British people have been rallied in support of a great cause. Some of us in the past looked with a good deal of apprehension to the war which was then coming, because in those days we had little faith in those who were associating themselves too closely with the dictator in Spain and with dictators elsewhere with whom they wished to make some kind of agreement. We should always keep in mind that our aims must include that every man shall secure the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that he shall not be falsely imprisoned in gaols or in concentration camps; that he shall not be enslaved nor shall he be exploited to the profit of any of his fellows; and that he shall be free always and everywhere to think, to speak and to worship as he will. And may I say that these words are a summary of what Mr. Morrison went on to say. He is one of the men who to-day is inspiring confidence not only in the common people of Great Britain but in the common people of Canada and lovers of democracy all across the world.
I only wish that in our own country we could hear the same kind of challenging
economic, social and political aims put forward by our leaders at this time. If we heard them, I am convinced that there would be very little trouble about arousing the Canadian people to the necessity of bringing this war to a successful conclusion. But, on the contrary, those of us who hold these views in common with men like Herbert Morrison and Ernest Bevin, are derided and accused of giving allegiance to something our critics call state socialism.
We believe in more liberty not less liberty, in more personal property privately owned and enjoyed but not in public property privately owned and used for the exploitation of the Canadian people. To right the-wrong is the aim of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and it is one of the-aims of the group sitting immediately to my left and embodied in the subamendment that, is before us this afternoon. The British workers are prepared to follow their leaders,, who have fought for their rights to organize and who have secured those rights for them in former days.
Although I usually dislike quoting at any length, I want to give one more quotation which I think has a direct bearing on the subject I am discussing. Mr. Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War for the United States, in a speech at New Orleans on November 18, said:
Under the leadership of Ernest Bevin and Herbert Morrison, English workers to-day are producing as men have never produced before, and by their labour they are turning their island home into an unconquerable citadel of freedom. With the enemy's bombs literally dropping about them as they work, they are turning out more and more of the instruments of defence. This unconquerable effort has been made under the leadership of labour itself, which to-day is the backbone of the British fight for freedom.
Yet the political faith of Bevin and Morrison is under continuous fire in this house at the present time. In Canada factories are idle and men are unemployed because this nation is trying to wage war under the baneful influence of private enterprise with the profit motive at the root of its endeavours. This debate has revealed that there is not as much basis for the statement I heard from England the other evening from Air Marshal Joubert as I should like to think there might be. The Air Marshal was lauding Canada's war effort and saying that soon there would flow to Britain vast quantities of supplies from the war industries of this country. But this debate has shown that little or nothing is>
being done to prepare thousands of idle' workers for the day when our industrial life is organized, as it must be organized in the near future, for the task that lies ahead.
The Address-Mr. Caldwell

An estimate was made a few days ago that in addition to all the money that we require to raise, we shall require something over
200,000	new workers in industry in the course of the next few months. So far, however, we have scarcely done anything to train these workers for the work they will have to undertake. I do not agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that people who can milk can tend a machine. They require training to tend the complicated machines of our complex industrial life. The Minister of Labour quoted resolutions from labour organizations expressing their willingness to forego some of their basic rights. Let me say to the minister and to the government that if the working people of Canada are to be asked to forego some of their hard-won rights and privileges, then we must ask the owners of industry and the controllers of finance to share equally by the sacrifice of their privileges also. There is a growing feeling that this is not being done.
The defence of Canada regulations are being used to prevent labour from exercising the basic right to organize. We saw an example of that recently in connection with the difficulties at the Chrysler plant. Mr. Herbert Morrison declared that no man shall be falsely imprisoned in gaols or in concentration camps and that justice shall not be denied him or delayed. Yet in Canada there are many men who, although they may be guilty of having been members of subversive organizations at some time, nevertheless have the right, surely, to be tried-a right now long delayed-and to know what the charges are against them. Under the defence of Canada regulations justice, although not denied, is indeed delayed, because men are not getting an early opportunity to make their plea against the accusations which caused their detention. In this war for democratic institutions that right ought to be kept inviolable. Every man should have that right within the British commonwealth. We are not looking in the right places for the subversive influences. The arrest of humble members of society who make stupid remarks has been played up, and members of organizations now outlawed have been arrested only because they were associated with those organizations. Sometimes, not recently but several years ago.
This brings me to a matter which is allied both to the question of our own financial obligations and to the democracy for which we wish to use our financial institutions. It is a matter which in my opinion parliament must consider and consider carefully. In my speech at the beginning of the session I made some references to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the resignation of Mr. Alan

Plaunt from the board of governors, and I requested that a parliamentary committee be set up to investigate the serious charges made by the retiring governor. I felt certain that the government would facilitate the establishment of such a committee in vieiw of Mr. Plaunt's long experience with publicly owned radio in Canada and the evident seriousness of the grounds for his resignation.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a public institution directly responsible to this parliament and not to the minister who may speak for it in this house. It is, therefore, a responsibility not of the ministry but of parliament itself. As I said in my earlier speech, radio is an important feature of modern life; through it, great good or evil can be done. I would emphasize that this is particularly true during a modern war and is a potent reason why we should maintain public confidence in this great and important publicly owned institution.
As yet no answer has been given regarding the appointment of a parliamentary committee. That being the situation, I think it is not unfair for me to assume that the government is prepared to allow the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to continue its present policies and management without any immediate parliamentary investigation. As members of this house we have not only the right but the duty to inquire into the serious charges made by Mr. Plaunt. Are they well founded or are they not?
Last week the board of governors met and passed resolutions expressing confidence in the general manager. But it is significant that they did not say a word to meet the charges- and I use the word "charges" advisedly-that have been made publicly in the press and recited in the House of Commons. On the other hand Mr. Plaunt repeated his charges and emphasized them in a statement to the press after the board's resolutions were published. He says that, by failing to face the situation, the board was-I quote him-"condoning very serious internal conditions and irregularities as well as certain policies which are indefensibly partisan and harmful." Again may I say that Mr. Plaunt is a highy educated man, a graduate of both Canadian and British universities, and when he uses the word "irregularities" I submit that the use of that word is sufficient to warrant a parliamentary inquiry into the irregularity or irregularities alleged.
Moreover-and this is of the utmost importance-he reiterates his readiness to substantiate fully before a parliamentary committee the grounds for his resignation. In the face of these charges the board's expression of confidence in the management cannot be accepted

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
in place of a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Plaunt's charges are in part directed against the corporation itself. Had the board been willing to take the necessary action, presumably Mr. Plaunt would not have resigned. In the public interest and in the interest of our democracy as well as of this great public service, it is therefore necessary to speak both plainly and bluntly in this matter.
Since the outbreak of war two important resignations have occurred from t'he staff of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for reasons, so I am informed, which dovetail with the charges made by Mr. Plaunt. One of these resignations occurred shortly after the outbreak of war, and concerned a young Canadian who is well known to many hon. members. I refer, of course, to Mr. E. A. Pickering who had for some years been attached to the Prime Minister's office and had won a reputation for both his ability and, I presume, his loyalty. Mr. Pickering joined the corporation in the fall of 1938, and for the latter part of his one-year service held the position of assistant to the general manager. Yet, after less than one year's work with the latter gentleman, Mr. Pickering resigned, I am reliably informed because of unsatisfactory internal conditions and unsound practices. We have a right to know what those unsound practices were.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has referred to Mr. Pickering's association with myself for a time in my office. From that it might be inferred by some that it was through this association in some way and with my knowledge that he obtained a position with the broadcasting corporation. I do not say that anyone is insinuating that, but I should like to make it perfectly clear to the house, and I am glad to have this opportunity to do so, that I was not aware of Mr. Pickering having secured any appointment with the broadcasting corporation until I read it in the papers. That was several weeks, or months, after he had resigned from his position in my office on the score of ill health. I just want to make that plain.


Major James William Coldwell: I wish to thank the Prime Minister. I had no intention of making any such insinuation. The reason why 1 mentioned Mr. Pickering's association with the Prime Minister's office was that I thought it to be an indication both of his ability and of his integrity.
In view of the situation that has arisen in the corporation, Mr. Pickering should be invited to appear before a parliamentary committee and explain what unsatisfactory conditions and unsound practices caused him to tender his resignation.
Last week the resignation of Mr. G. W. Buchanan, son of a most respected western senator, was announced. Since before the outbreak of war Mr. Buchanan had been director of public affairs broadcasts, and had been employed in important posts with the corporation since the beginning of 1937. To the press Mr. Buchanan stated that his resignation was caused by "a lack of organization and clear definition of policies relating to war-time needs."
I understand that Mr. Buchanan's letter of resignation goes into the matter fully, and also cites a number of examples, which show a complete absence, in the present management, of any liberalism or sense of democratic objectives for which we are fighting in this war. In fact it would seem that, at times, personal considerations rather than the public interest have influenced the choice of programmes and speakers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? Does he intimate in any way that there has been any malfeasance in office on the part of the management, or is it just a difference of policy? I would like him to elucidate that.


Major James William Coldwell: I would say that the terms used, "irregularities" and "unsound practices" cover a much wider field than simply differences as to policy. Since those terms are used, I submit that it is the duty of this house to find out exactly what they mean, and that we should do so by way of a committee.
I was proceeding to say that some of the war programmes initiated by the corporation itself since the outbreak of war have done this country no good. Hon. members will recall, for example, the broadcasts by Mr. George McCullagh and the circumstances attending them. They will also remember, perhaps, a series called "Over the Top," which I am reliably informed was stopped through the intervention of the government itself.
We have had some excellent war series, but upon inquiry I have learned, or at least have been told, that all of them originated in the office of public information, or in one of our own government institutions or departments. A parliamentary committee could place the responsibility where it belongs.
I come now to a matter of equally grave importance. In the November 23 issue of Le Jour, a newspaper published in Montreal in the French language, which I read with some difficulty, there was a long article, which I had translated for me afterwards, signed by the editor and dealing in part with the behaviour of the Montreal management of French network of the broadcasting corporation

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
towards Jules Romains, one of the greatest living figures in French literature. I propose to place the following extracts from the article-a translation of course-on Hansard:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, too, thought it prudent to forbid any political speech by the author (Romains) over its network. He was told that he would be welcome at CBF-
That is the French language broadcasting station.

if he would confine himself to a literary subject. Naturally the offer was declined. Romains had broadcast more than once from American stations. These broadcasts had been relayed to Canada. They were, perhaps, the finest and most useful talks, from the viewpoint of our war aims, that we had heard in Canada. Why then did Romains, once here, become for these scrupulous CBC officials, a scapegoat and a pariah? We know-and we will prove it at the proper time and place- that there are, in the higher reaches of the information and radio services, men who not only have always been and still are the enemies of the democratic ideals for which thousands of our men are shedding their blood, but who, while hypocritically praising-because it is the duty of their office-the acts of our allies would in no way be displeased by a British defeat and a nazi-fascist victory.
I am quoting, of course.
We know the company these people keep, and in those circles it is quite the correct thing to do to vilify England and to judge with philosophical calm-and even with sympathy- Germany and Italy. And yet, these are the men who are paid to mold public opinion, to steer hatred into the proper channels, to create enthusiasm, in brief, to save us! We are indeed in good hands! It is by having acted in this way, it is by having harboured in their midst saboteurs and traitors, that certain European countries, including France, are to-day humiliated and enslaved.
I deeply regret to have to unveil this shameful situation. I do it because it is my duty and I hope that the government at Ottawa, before whom I place these facts, will be wise enough to open its eyes and to act.
These are most serious charges. Mr. Jean-Charles Harvey, the author of this article, states that he is prepared, at the proper time and place, to prove these charges. There is only one proper place, Mr. Speaker, and only one proper time. That place is before this parliament, or a committee of this parliament, and the time surely is at the earliest opportunity. Therefore I submit that the statements by Mr. Plaunt, the grave charges made by Le Jour, and the reasons given for the resignations of Mr. Pickering and Mr. Buchanan surely demand a complete investigation into this important public service, which we must protect, as a public service, from destruction before it is too late.
Why is the government silent on the matter? No reference was made to the corporation in the speech of the Minister of 
Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in this house. Why does the board of governors remain ready to allow such a condition to continue? This is a great public service, and to my mind it is dangerous to rely almost wholly upon a chairman who is the head of a St. James street trust and a vice-chairman who is a key figure in the Canadian movie industry, which in a sense is a competing industry and which, largely under the guidance of this same vice-chairman, has become one of our great Canadian monopolies. Is this another example of big business controlling what has been called by a United States author the " opinion industries?" I repeat that conditions in the broadcasting corporation, our experience since the outbreak of war and the incidents to which I have referred demand a complete parliamentary inquiry into the whole matter, and I am taking this opportunity of again asking for such an inquiry, or an assurance by the Prime Minister that it will be undertaken when the house reconvenes in February.
There are other matters to which I should have liked to refer, but I see that Mr. Speaker is warning me that my time has expired, and I do not wish to trespass further on the time of the house.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon.
members must remember quite well what happened last August, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) suggested that we should not prorogue but that, instead, the house should sit for an indefinite period of time. I believe the views of a majority of hon. members were not those expressed by the leader of the opposition, who leads-I wonder whether that is the proper word- just a small handful of members of parliament. His idea was that the house should be adjourned to some later date, in order that we might be able to meet in case of an emergency. Strangely enough, the date on which we met again was November 5, not the date of the invasion of England by Hitler but the date of the presidential election in the United States, an altogether different matter. The house met and parliament was prorogued; two days later this session was begun and this debate has continued since that time.
I wish to offer my most sincere congratulations to those members of parliament, whose number is growing every day, who have shown their independence of thought in offering constructive criticism. For many years I have done that, in language that was not always flowery but nevertheless was always sincere. At times, sir, I have been treated like a

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
black sheep because I spoke my mind, but I felt vindicated when I heard or read the fine speeches made by some of my colleagues this session. Members of parliament realize their responsibilities, which are heavy, and I am glad to say that our constituents realize them also. I am amazed that a small number of cabinet ministers should think this is their own war and their own business, and that they can lord it over us. It is time they realized that it is our war, the war of all of us; our business, the business of all of us; our money, the money of all of us; and our future, the future of all of us.
In saying that, I am not at all advocating a union government, nor is it my idea that the leader of the opposition alone should be taken into the confidence of the government. I believe that when matters of importance are to be decided by the government, all members should be taken into their confidence. We are here as representatives of the people, with whom we keep in touch. Every week-end since the beginning of this session I have returned home to meet and talk with my constituents, and I am prouder of them than ever. I feel refreshed when I go home; in fact, if I had not spent my week-ends at Riviere du Loup I could not have stayed in Ottawa for so long this session.
But, sir, at times each of us has. occasion to meet a man on the street. We talk to him and, what is more important, we listen to him. I say that because no member of parliament will learn the views of his people if he proceeds to give a lecture. He must ask questions. He must listen, and must remember what has been said to him. When the poorest man in a constituency pays any member of parliament the honour of calling on him, and when that person opens his heart to show confidence in his representative, and tell him secrets he would not tell his neighbour, that member may well be proud of his position as a member of parliament.
When we assemble in this chamber we have the duty not to forget what we are told by those who have honoured us by permitting us to represent them. I want to remember what I have been told by them. There is not a member in this house who does not wish and expect-and the sooner the better- the complete defeat of Hitler and Mussolini, and all of those who would try to impose their will on the democratic nations, and cause them to disappear as such.
There are few of us who are in the army. It is our duty to see that a real war is waged against those whom, by passing two orders in council last year, this government has declared our enemies. They are the enemies
of all of us, and we must win over them. The winning of this war is essential to the welfare and to the future of all democracies.
I am reminded of what Marshal Foch said in my presence at the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec, when he was received after the last war as the victor over the hordes he had defeated. His words were: "War is common sense." As we shall all be affected either favourably or unfavourably by the results of this war, it is our duty to give all possible assistance to the government, and to tell them we are one in our desire to help to win.
But I wonder whether flattery is a real help. I do not think it is. When one is driving a car along a dangerous highway and he sees his friend raise his hand, and hears him say, "Do not go farther," that person must not conclude that his friend has become unfriendly simply because of his action in giving warning of a danger. The natural thing to do is to stop and to take heed of the advice given. One may ask, "Why have I been stopped?" And the answer might be, "There is a precipice at the end of this road, and if you proceed two hundred yards farther you may fall over it."
With this in mind, I say that there is nothing hostile in the action of a member of parliament who warns the government against any dangerous policy. One of the worst policies we could follow would be that of thinking that we are to come here simply to listen to everything that is said, and observe "de Conrart le silence prudent"-"Conrart's prudent silence." At times we have something of praise to say; at other times we may have blame to place. But so long as a man is sincere, no person must expect him to become a slave, or to be ready to swallow everything decided by persons outside the government who have no right to speak on behalf of the people of Canada.
We are facing a long, hard war. Everybody is agreed on that. We shall not win it by shutting our mouths and being yes-men. Members of parliament should be consulted, and sooner or later the government would have to make up its mind about it. Matters of great importance and vital to all of us are decided by a handful of anonymous outsiders who believe that they are high above criticism. The man who enters politics or public life, even from the back-door, has no right, whenever it suits him, to retire under the shelter of his private life so as to escape criticism. To give the reason that it is ungentlemanly to criticize the actions of the experts whose advice is blindly followed by the government is ridiculous. As members of parliament we are all exposed to such
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

attacks. When they are unfair we are at liberty to justify ourselves. If one is afraid of them, then there is only one thing for him to do, and that is to stay at home.
In these days we hear a good deal about Westminster. Let us follow what is being done at Westminster. We should act as they do there, so far as parliamentary practice and procedure are concerned. The rules of that house are not numerous, but the practice has been established by traditions stretching back hundreds of years-traditions of freedom, traditions of liberty, traditions of real democracy-and the parliament at Westminster should be our guiding star in our deliberations. Otherwise we might forget that we are a British dominion. Anyone who might visit the English parliament would see that men have an opportunity to discuss questions vital not only to Great Britain but to the whole of the British empire. They do so freely. They are not afraid to speak, nor do they use the language of sissies. They talk like men, and man to man. The atmosphere of Westminster is not that of a pink-tea room but that of the oldest parliament in the world, one in which the members show that they are men, that they are worthy of the confidence placed in them.
I can tell you, sir, that I am true to the traditions of my province, true to the traditions of my family and true to the traditions of the illustrious grandfather of my chief when I make these statements. I have always been ready to defend my party. I have always believed that one should be loyal to his party, and I have tried to show fidelity to mine at all times. I have shown fidelity when the whole party was ready to vote for Bennett. I was alone in voting against him. I have shown fidelity to the party when everyone on our side had a long face after hearing two speeches by the Hon. H. H. Stevens about unemployment. I ask hon. members to refer to what he did and said about it during the time when Mr. Bennett was leader of the opposition, when he was Prime Minister and after the great good-bye. He disappeared and we did not see him round the house any more for a whole week.
The same with the former leader of the opposition. I can remember when he sat with dear old Ned Ryckman during the time our party was in power in 1928. Between the taking of two votes Mr. Manion tried to make a surprise attack on this government, and I answered him. My first word was that this was the first time in my life that I had noticed the effervescence of a cerebral seid-litz. Some hon. members were laughing, but I was defending my own party. That happened before dinner, and after dinner the

whip came to me with a five o'clock edition of one of our Ottawa contemporaries and showed me the report of a speech which had been delivered by Sir Robert Borden the same day. He told me to use it because the first part of that speech was directed against the prospective Tory leader in the house.
There were times when we were fighting for the party, fighting against R. B. Bennett, the man who was defying God and man, and was just as scarlet as that thing under the beak of a turkey. I told our lamented friend, Mr. Rogers, to give me a chance to fix him. I told him a few things which were quite right, judging by the way in which they were received by members of the party. Then he sat down. It was said that that was a wicked way to deal with the former Prime Minister. And he was still red.
Every time the party has been in trouble the member for Temiscouata has defended it because he expected at all times that the party would promote views which would be in the interests of the people of the country. This was done for a long time. This was done until 1930, the golden age of the Liberal party. You, Mr. Speaker, were a member of the house at that time, and you will recall the great days until Bennett came to power. Then what happened? Bennett had the opportunity to show how good he was as Prime Minister of Canada, but look at the type of men he picked for high positions in the government service! He picked pygmies from the United States and from all round the country. When Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister, they never knew what was going to happen the day after; but when this government came into power, it was decided that they were experts, that they were gifted with the faculty of being mind-readers and so on. It is deplorable to think that such importance is given to men who are not in contact with the Canadian people. There are many of these men in the service, particularly in the Department of Finance.
I have listened to my hon. friends to my extreme right and I appreciate the fine optimism they show in the subamendment. But that optimism is preceded by pessimism. The subamendment reads:
And this house further regrets the failure of the government to adopt a monetary policy-
Here comes the optimism.
-that would permit a maximum war effort without either increasing debt or reducing the standards of living below; that necessary for maintaining maximum efficiency.
It has never been clear in my mind just what they wish to promote. When I have asked them they have answered that I did not understand a word of what they were

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
saying. Of course, I am simply a man on the street, I am not an expert in these great problems of finance. Then they asked something with which I cannot agree absolutely:
Furthermore this house is of the opinion that a continuation of the present financial policy will further destroy the precious liberties so essential to, and recognized as being inherent in a true democracy.
I cannot say that I agree entirely with that. There is, however, something which we can discuss together and with regard to which we can arrive at a certain understanding. In my opinion the worst possible policy to adopt in connection with financial matters in this country is that of contraction. If a man attempted to live on a diet of vinegar and lemons, he would be finished in no time, because those articles of food would have the effect of contracting his stomach so that it would be impossible for him to eat anything else. One of the absurdities regarding trade which were advanced by R. B. Bennett was that trade should be one-sided, that we should have no imports but should just export to other countries. He did not consider invisible exports in connection with the tourist traffic and so on. This was a great mistake, and I am afraid that the experts of the Department of Finance may induce this government to follow that practice. Most of these men were Bennett appointees and therefore they are dangerous men. They were advisers of Bennett, and I think this government should take their advice with at least a grain of salt.
For five years we had as Minister of Finance a man who had absolutely no legal training or understanding. He never knew the rules of the House of Commons, and he was inclined to follow the same dangerous course as had been followed by Mr. Bennett, and listen to men who were not qualified to occupy the high positions they hold in the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance. They were his advisers-men who were cranks. I remember very well that one day I was interrupted by the then Minister of Finance, who took the advice of a man who was then and is still incompetent, in the Department of Finance, and he is one of a great many lords of this country whose advice is followed by the government. He has one of the highest salaries paid in the civil service. Another one, who receives $30,000 a year, says to all the poor fellows who have no money, "Tighten your belts; practise economy." And he receives $30,000, enough to sustain sixty families during this hard winter. Those are the people we are expected to listen to. They are the experts, they are the great men, they are the Melehizedeks. Well, that is enough.
We are told that it is not gentlemanly for us to say that these men are not qualified to be considered experts in this country. I strongly protest, Mr. Speaker. They should be fired, all of them, and replaced by men having sound minds and good common sense.
We find the same conditions in other departments. Men come from outside and are deemed to be experts. So long as they have not been elected by the people they are great men. One of the ministers, who I presume is now the guest of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett at Juniper Hill, Surrey, told us that we were not to indulge in favoritism or in patronage. Let us look at the directors and officials of Barclay's bank, the bank of which he was a director, who are now in the Department of National Defence. There is Magee, there is Fraser, and how many more. When these -things are done by the department, it is all right, but when a request is supported by members-"nix.". What hypocrisy it is to tell us that there will be no politics in -these matters, and yet all these barons of finance are coming here to take possession of Ottawa! We shall never stand for it. I am all against this kind of thing. If these men want to have anything to do with public business, they should run as candidates in a constituency, or be appointed to some vacancies in the senate, or be made deputy ministers.
To-day we have a czar of labour. We have also a czar of steel. Besides that, orders in council during the recess are substituted for the statutes of parliament, because the government has followed the absurd proposal of the leader of the opposition. It is not the usual statute book which we are supposed to receive, it is orders in council passed during the adjournment which are the laws of the land, and I would not be astonished if such orders in council are still being passed while this parliament is in session and while we have been discussing and listening to commencement exercises.
Well, sir, I hope we shall soon come back to the good old system of responsible government. We hear at times from ministers that they have assumed a great responsibility- that they have decided this or not done that, and by so doing have assumed a great responsibility. Of course it is the duty of members of the government while in office to make certain definite decisions regarding the matters which are brought before them; they have to decide what to do. But they do not assume thereby any extraordinary responsibility; they are there to discharge those functions, and whether they do the right -thing or not is a matter for the House of Commons to decide.
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

Ministerial responsibility is the rendering of accounts for every cent which is spent by the government. That is ministerial responsibility, it is understood by all of us, and it was well expounded by the hon. member lor Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who made one of the most magnificent speeches that I have ever heard in this house. Ministerial responsibility is a principle which our forefathers fought for, and they succeeded in gaining it, and now we have lost it since Charley Dunning has been Minister of Finance. Hon. members recall the discussion of the mortgage bank, when he told me that he had given me information. He had, indeed, given me some information, but it was not all that I wanted, and I did not get any information about some of the bodies for which the Canadian taxpayer is responsible.
My idea of responsible government is so important, Mr. Speaker, that, as it is one minute to six, I will ask you to call it six o'clock. I have something else to say.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I refer again to the subamendment? The first part reads:
And this house further regrets the failure of the government to adopt a monetary policy that would permit a maximum war effort without either increasing debt or reducing the standards of living below that necessary for maintaining maximum efficiency.
We have of course to consider the question of inflation, because we cannot forget what happened to rubles, marks and francs in consequence of inflation. But even with inflation it is impossible to improve the standards of living without increasing debt, and we have the example of the United States of America, where marvels have been accomplished for the unemployed, but not without increasing debt; and, as every hon. member knows, the debt of the United States is the largest of any country in the world.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Why can it not be done without debt?


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore the subamendment is contrary to common sense. If put into practice, it would not work. In my humble view it is necessary to have a currency standard. When our mint was under the British government we had reports on coinage, but unfortunately, since the mint has become Canadian, we have not.
When all the gold reserve of the world is accumulated, concentrated and frozen in one

country, the currencies of other countries are depreciated to that extent. What standard shall we have in the future? A possible standard is silver-and I cannot see how we could have any other precious metals than gold and silver as standards of currency. Platinum is, of course, a very rare metal, and no one could expect the standard to consist of diamonds or other precious stones. At any rate, a standard is needed. Whether in the future it will be silver we do not know, but we do know that if neither gold nor silver is accepted as the standard, then we shall have to go in for barter, and that is the primitive method of trading.
We must rely on trade and on trade moving both ways, and I congratulate the government warmly upon having sent a trade commission to south America. I wish every success to the minister who is going there. It is a step in the right direction. The monetary system should be looked at from the point of view that money is not the principal factor, being only the medium by means of which trade is carried on; and if anyone makes it the principal factor, he is making a great mistake. For these reasons it is impossible for me to vote for the subamendment.
May I say one word to my hon. friends to the extreme right. If they cite the Aberhart administration in Alberta as a success in the field of social credit they are quite mistaken, because the management of Alberta's business affairs by Mr. Aberhart has been more conservative than if it could have been in the hands of Sir Herbert Holt.
There is another point I wish to make and it is this. If the first part of the subamendment were deleted, I would vote for the second part, for this reason. In the Bank of Canada and in the Department of Finance we need, not economists but bankers-sound bankers-and I take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who honours me by listening to what I am going to say about him. I am going to pay him no mean compliment. May I say that he has intelligence-a thing we have not seen for five years in the heads of that department. In the second place, I believe he is sound-minded and I put him in the class of the late Jim Robb, whose budgets were always so well received by the country. The Minister of Finance can take my word for it that it is no mean compliment I pay him when I compare him with the late Mr. Robb, because Mr. Robb was a man of common sense. Indeed, he was a great man precisely because he had a great deal of common sense. He was no fool.
A great mistake has been made in finance in Canada. As I once pointed out to that

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
great financier who had become rich overnight-I refer to R. B. Bennett-the national debt is in a large measure the national wealth; and if a country pays returns upon an amount borrowed from Canadian citizens, these returns are the income of our fellow citizens. Therefore it is dangerous to reduce the rate of interest on either dominion or provincial loans; for, if the total amount of interest which is to be paid by the dominion and by the provinces is less, it means that the returns to those who have lent money to the Canadian exchequer, or to the exchequers of the provinces, as the case may be, will also be less, so that a certain amount of disturbance results. Of course, it is the policy that has been followed for some years, and in my opinion it was a great mistake.
Interest on bank deposits has been reduced, and interest on the shares-the return to the shareholders of the banks-is about the same. That also is a mistake. Take a person who has $20,000 in a bank. When the rate of interest was three per cent the return was $600; now the rate of interest is only one and a half per cent and the return is only $300. The result is that, owing to that reduction in the rate of interest on deposits, that person has to begin living on the capital itself, and little by little the deposit disappears from the account.


Georges Parent: The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the house for
its indulgence, which brings a warmth to my heart.
Let me continue. Whether it is on the advice of experts or of plain-clothes men, I cannot say; but on the one hand the government pays less, the provinces pay less, and it means that John, Joe, Mary and the dear old widow Mrs. So-and-So will receive less. They receive less and have, therefore, to curtail their expenditure.


Mr. FAIR:: How about the widow who
has to pay that?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I understood only
the word "widow." You see, sir, it is elementary that one should look at both sides of the matter, but only one side is seen, the side of the government. Of course the country pays that, the provinces pay that, but the people of our country are poorer every time.
There is another thing I cannot understand. It is that the issuance of bank notes in Canada is guaranteed by the national reserve in gold and other securities. Of course the reserve must be in the hands of the institution that issues the bank notes; that is
elementary. But with our experts-and this is a point I was going to make last session when I was answering one of my hon. friends on the extreme left and was interrupted by my hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) who is just coming in and whom I welcome; he did not seem to understand the point-on the one hand, the bank notes are issued by the Bank of Canada, and on the other, our national reserve in gold and securities is in the hands of an altogether different institution, the foreign exchange control board. How can the foreign exchange control board guarantee the payment of bank notes, "pay to the bearer," issued by the Bank of Canada? I cannot understand it, it must be very high finance.
At one time, according to the statute books of this country, it was necessary for a man to have ten years' experience as a banker to be deputy minister of finance. But now it is superfluous.
Banking is a science, and political economy is not. Banking is a science based on rules of experience; political economy is only a conglomeration of views concocted together. One may have one view, another may have another view, a third may have a different view, a fourth a different one again, but it does not mean that from all these views you will make a science. A science is definite, real knowledge. That is what I want for those who are in charge of this delicate problem of finance for this country.
If there were only the last paragraph of the subamendment, I would vote for it because I find that Canada is in a very dangerous situation by reason of the ill-advice that is given by some so-called experts both in the Bank of Canada and in the Department of Finance. And it is impossible to get any information about that. Last year I tried to get the telephone numbers of the Bank of Canada, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance told me "No. 369;" that was repeated nine times. But it was No. 369, meaning that there were at least 369 telephones in that square building.
I have much more to say, but I will do so on another occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken on the main motion, and therefore will not have an opportunity to speak again in the course of the present debate if I do not take advantage of the present moment to do so. Possibly I shall not be violating the rules of the house if, in speaking on the amendment to the amendment, I confine my remarks to replying, in a very few particulars, to one or
630	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
two things that were said this afternoon by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). What I might wish to say with regard to what has been said by others can perhaps stand over for another time. But I believe my hon. friend would expect me to reply to him immediately, or at least in the course of the present debate.
Perhaps my hon. friend would let me begin my remarks at the place at which he concluded his. His last remarks had reference to the statement which I made in the house yesterday and which, much to my surprise, he characterized as quite unexpected and something much more critical. May I first of all say to my hon. friend that the reason why I made the statement I did yesterday, rather than wait until a later day in the session, was that on Thursday last when he asked me to give the house information with respect to existing conditions, he said that I ought to give the information either that day, or at the latest, "to-morrow", which was the word he used, "to-morrow" being Friday. I replied that I would wish to think over what I had to say before speaking on a matter so important and might wish a little longer interval of time. I was anxious to reply to my hon. friend just as soon as I could after he had made the request he did, not only to oblige him in that particular but also because I thought the statement which he made was one which called for a reply at the earliest possible moment.
The statement which my hon. friend made left in my mind, and I think in the minds of all hon. members, the impression that a condition existed in Europe at the present time, a condition which, as he expressed it himself, was very much worse than it had been at any time since the fall of France. We all know that at the time of the fall of France the condition was as bad as it could possibly be. Nothing could have been more serious than the situation was at that particular time.
My hon. friend asked me to make statements of a specific character. He is right about one sentence of what his request contained; it was:
I would request him to indicate what further, if anything, Canada can do at this juncture towards aid and assistance, whether it be in men, materials, supplies or equipment.
I felt that the statements which had been made by myself and my colleagues in the course of the present debate had answered that question in very large part before it was asked, inasmuch as they set forth a programme which the government is doing its utmost to carry out, and which I think all will agree is as extensive as could be expected at this particular time. But I did conclude

by saying that I thought the situation demanded all that all of us could do. I wish to say at once that I think the time has come when people everywhere throughout Canada should realize that they must examine their own consciences, as well as seek to look into the conscience of the government, to understand what service they can and ought to render at a time as critical as the present. Each man or each woman in Canada knows what he or she in his or her present circumstances can do to assist Canada's war effort. Some can assist by saving, others by lending; some can assist by working in one direction, others by working in another direction. The time has come now when it is for every man or woman to ask himself or herself, "How can I where I am, and where I may find it possible to 'be, best serve in this great crisis; how can I serve my country and how can I serve humanity itself?" because it is the existence of civilization as we understand it that is at stake at this time.
The government is putting forth all the effort it possibly can, as a trustee of the people. The government's task is to take account of the fact that it is dealing with the funds of the people of Canada. It is not dealing with matters that are the personal property of its individual members. The government is a trustee, having to discharge duties on behalf of the people of Canada as a whole; and in discharging those duties it has to have continually in mind its obligation of trusteeship with respect to what can be done at this stage, what may havq to be done to-morrow, and what may have to be done at a still later time.
Here is the specific statement my hon. friend wished me to make. These are his words:
... in my view, in the view of many hon. members of this house, and I feel quite certain in the view of many people in Canada, the war situation in Europe is more serious to-day than at any time since the fall of France. The virtual destruction of the cities of Birmingham, Bristol and Southampton, the loss of shipping as evidenced by press reports, and in particular the utterances of the Marquess of Lothian, his majesty's representative in the United^ States, particularly with respect to finance, indicate the seriousness of the position.
Then my hon. friend goes on to say:
Therefore in my view the Prime Minister should make a statement to the house and the country, if not to-day then not later than to-morrow, and tell the country just what the exact position is; because it will be understood that he has access to information wrhich we have not. Let him tell the house and the country how serious the position is or, if we are wrong in our views, how good the position is. . . .
I ask hon. members who listened to the statement I made yesterday if I did not in

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
every respect try to follow literally the request of my hon. friend. I tried to tell the house how good I thought the situation was. I also tried to tell the house how serious I thought the position was. I do not think I overemphasized the one or the other. I did direct particular attention to the inference that could be drawn from my hon. friend's words, because later on he repeated them, when he said:
.. . I do feel that the situation to-day in the theatre of war over there is just as serious as it was at the time of the fall of France, and we are all very uneasy about it.
I do not feel that way, and I could not reply to my hon. friend that I agreed with him in that. To-day my hon. friend says that in my reply I agreed with him that the situation was serious, and that he could not understand why I went further in the statement I made yesterday. Here is what I said in reply to my hon. friend, quoting the words that he would wish quoted:
I agree with my hon. friend in his view that the situation is a serious one. I think anyone reading the press would gather that opinion. I would also say that such information as the government itself is receiving the press would appear to be reflecting accurately. Any statement that I may have to make will be practically in accord with what has already appeared in the press.
What did my hon. friend say when I concluded my statement yesterday? He said I had not told the house anything the house did not know or anything that had not already appeared in the press. I fail therefore to see in what I said where there was anything that should have called forth the remark my hon. friend made in referring to the statement I had given. The hon. gentleman said that, recalling what I said on Thursday last, he felt a sort of sense of frustration as I was speaking yesterday; that he wondered which was Doctor Jekyll and which was Mr. Hyde. I would say to my hon. friend that I have been wondering what could have brought to his mind that work of fiction by Robert Louis Stevenson on the strange case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; and I have come to the conclusion, since my hon. friend spoke about what Mr. Brockington had said as a result of his close association with me, that he must have had in mind some of the correspondence that had passed between Mr. Brockington and himself, before making the remarks he did in the house this afternoon. I do not know whether my hon. friend regards the correspondence that passed between Mr. Brockington and himself as confidential. I do not think he does, because he referred to it this afternoon and, indeed, quoted a passage from it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; my hon. friend did make reference to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I referred to it, but I did not quote it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought my hon. friend quoted what he had said about Mr. Broekington's oratory. At any rate my hon. friend is aware that if any hon. member refers to correspondence in debate, he must be prepared to table the correspondence. The correspondence which my hon. friend had with Mr. Brockington started as long ago as November 13. It is on the paper of the House of Commons, office of the leader of the opposition. It does not bear the words " private " or " confidential," nor do these words appear on Mr. Brockington's reply.
I may say that I knew nothing of the text of this correspondence before my hon. friend made his statement this afternoon. I had heard that my hon. friend had asked Mr. Brockington about the source of his information, after he made his statement at Philadelphia, and that Mr. Brockington had made a reply, but I never discussed the matter either with Mr. Brockington or with my hon. friend. That was a natural course for the leader of the opposition to follow, if he was in doubt on any matter; to seek to get the exact information. But what did my hon. friend say in his letters? First of all, he asked for a copy of the speech that was made at Philadelphia, and then he said:
I assume, of course, that you were speaking in your own personal capacity, but if you went there either representing the government or in any manner interpreting the government to the American Bar Association it would be a matter of great interest to me, because I understand that you made the following declaration on that occasion . . .
In speaking to the house this afternoon, my hon. friend approached the subject from the point of view of Mr. Brockington's close association with myself, and sought to have the house believe that what Mr. Brockington said at Philadelphia was as a result of that close association, that he had been saying something there which differed from what I had given to my hon. friend as a statement of the facts of the case. Mr. Brockington immediately sent a copy of his speech to the leader of the opposition, and my hon. friend thanked him for it and said:
As a piece of sheer oratory, it is magnificent.
I salute you, and congratulate you.
Elsewhere he went on to say:
But I do wish you would write me and tell me frankly what you had in mind when you spoke, near the end of your speech, of "a pact ' between your country and mine by which you
632	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
agree to defend us in certain eventualities and we agree to defend you," and what you know, for I was assured on August 20 by the Prime Minister that up to that time there were no commitments and I have not heard of any since.
So my hon. friend admits that I had given him the assurance that there were no commitments at the time of the Ogdensburg meeting. I repeated that statement this afternoon. My hon. friend had the best of reasons for not doubting that the statement I had made to him was other than wholly correct. Let me read what Mr. Brockington said in his reply:
I had no conversation with the Prime Minister concerning what I intended to say or should say. I, of course, asked him if I might take a few days holidays to attend a meeting in my private capacity.
And later:
With reference to the language and subject matter of the sentence which you question, I had and have no knowledge of the conversations at Ogdensburg or of any cognate conversations or transactions before or since other than that already made public and available to any Canadian citizen in the Canadian press. Any error or misstatement, or misinterpretation, therefore, in my remarks must be entirely attributable to me. I accept full responsibility -no one else can share it or be charged with it.


Mr. NEILL:: What date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The date is
November 15. I do not think anything could be plainer than that. I think Mr. Brockington was wholly honourable with my hon. friend, but I must say to him that when he had this correspondence in his possession, and had the assurance that he did have from me, and had, in addition, the assurance he received from Mr. Brockington as to the source of his information, this afternoon as he spoke of the close association with myself as having possibly led Mr. Brockington to give a different interpretation, and went on to refer to his friend and mine as possibly having been influenced by the walnuts and the wine- referring to a gentleman he knew to be most abstemious-I began to wonder whether it was Doctor JekylJ or Mr. Hyde who was speaking.
May I now pass to another remark of my hon. friend to which I wish also to take strong objection. And may I say to him, and this in all kindliness, that I believe sometimes my hon. friend speaks without fully realizing the implication of his words.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not
exempt myself from doing that at times. We are all prone to do it. But I do say to my hon. friend that holding the positions he and I hold at this very critical time, we owe it to ourselves and to the country to be most

careful about the words we use in stating matters which relate to this all-important situation.
My hon. friend was referring to Canada's war effort, and to an impression concerning it which, he says, exists in Great Britain. I must say I was very much surprised at the remark of my hon. friend. I thought I had his exact words before me, but I believe I can recall them almost exactly. They were to the effect that from information he had received from the other side of the water there was a feeling in England that Canada is seeking to make money out of our war effort. I ask my hon. friend just to think about the significance of those words. That is not an attack on the government; it is an attack on the people of Canada. That is a reflection upon the war effort of Canada as it is being put forth by the producers, by manufacturers and by all the men and women in this country who are seeking to do their part toward the winning of the war.
My hon. friend tells us that, despite all we have been seeking to do-and I use the term "we" in the sense of the people of Canada- that in England there exists the impression that Canada is seeking to make money out of her war effort. I say that is unfair to the people of England. I say it is unfair-yes, doubly unfair to the people of Canada. I would go farther and say that it is a libel upon Canada that anyone should either express or repeat words to that effect-anyone who has any understanding or knowledge whatsoever of the war effort of this country.
I think I am as much in touch with leading persons in the old country as is my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. Not a day goes by that I do not receive some communication from the old country in the form of letters or telegrams in reference to the views entertained there with respect to Canada's war effort. Hardly a day passes that I do not meet someone, or converse with someone who has just come from the old country or who has been there and just returned home; and I say to my hon. friend that the word they most use with respect to Canada's war effort is that it is magnificent [DOT]-that is the word. And I say to my hon. friend that if anyone expressed to him views such as he indicated this afternoon, he did not know what he was talking about.
My hon. friend has said that we should do all we can to dissipate that view. May I say to him that I have not heard another citizen in Canada express a view of the kind. It is my hon. friend who has put forth that view, and he is the only one who has done so.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
I want the people of Canada to know that no one in England has any opinion of that kind with respect to Canada's war effort.
I come now to the other side of my hon. friend, the better side. A few days ago my hon. friend spoke of the desirability of the house appointing two standing committees. I believe he made that suggestion on November 12, when he first spoke in this debate. His words were as follows:
Knowing of this feeling I am impelled to propose to the government that it cause to be set up immediately two select special committees which will be charged with the responsibility and the duty of investigating and reporting to this house factualy, objectively and truthfully, without bias and without partisanship-and I have no doubt that is possible- what is our exact position (a) with respect to our fighting forces, military, naval and air; and (b) with respect to the production and delivery of all the important materials, equipment and supplies necessary in our war effort, so that the Canadian people may know the truth. Before such committees ministers could appear and be subject to questioning.
My hon. friend concluded by saying:
I am willing with some of my colleagues to meet with the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues so that we may consider the whole proposal, in an honest effort to arrive at a conclusion.
May I say that since making that statement, my hon. friend and two of his colleagues have met with me and two or three of my colleagues to consider the matter there referred to. I wish to say to him and to the house that no approach to the subject could have been more helpful or could have been better in every respect than that which he and his colleagues made in confidence with the government in this matter. We spoke quite frankly to my hon. friend and his colleagues with respect to the difficulties which surrounded the procedure of dealing with war expenditures, questions of production and distribution- deliveries, I believe, was the word he used- in any standing committee of the house which might be holding its proceedings in public and which during part of the time might have to ask that the proceedings be held for some time in camera. We particularly pointed out the difficulties of imparting to parliament or to any committees certain information.
I will mention to the house just what one of those difficulties is. We have been asked by the British government-and this is a request they have made to governments in all parts of the British commonwealth; it is not one which has been made to us alone; it is a matter of which the British government itself has taken full account-to avoid, if possible, the disclosure of numbers, the disclosure of amounts, the disclosure of quantities, the
disclosure of anything in public which would help to give the enemy an appreciation of the strength or lack of strength of the forces opposing him.
I think every one can see the reasonableness of a position of the kind. But it does raise a very difficult situation for the government. If we are not on the horns of a dilemma, we are at least in the matter of information sailing between Scylla and Charybdis all the time. We are either too near the rock of Scylla in giving more in the way of information than we should, or we are drifting to the other side toward the whirlpool of Charybdis and are being accused of withholding from the people of our country the information they are entitled to have. I can only put the situation as it is in its clear light before members of this house and before the country, and trust to the soundness of their judgment. That is the position we are in with respect to the disclosure of information that might prove to be harmful.
As I have said over and over again, it must be remembered in connection with this present conflict that it is not a matter of days, it is not a matter of months, but it is a matter of years. Information that we are giving from hour to hour and from day to day is being accumulated by those whose interest it is to do all they possibly can to destroy the British empire and every part of it. I believe our country is fairly free of those who have played the disreputable part which has been taken by fifth columns in other countries, but that we are wholly free of persons who are gathering up information to pass on to the enemy, sorting it out for them and telling them the significance of it, I do not for a moment believe. Therefore, we have to be scrupulously careful of what we say, having regard to human nature as we know it, and having regard to the situations as we know they have been in every land.
It is for that reason and for that reason only that the government hesitates to say to this house that it is prepared to have standing committees before which will be placed the exact position with respect to our fighting forces, naval, military and air. Let me illustrate: With respect to our air force, it would mean that we would have to tell how many planes we have been manufacturing, how many have been sent across the seas, how many airmen are being trained, when they are likely to leave Canada, how many have sons, et cetera, et cetera. I have, I am sure, only to mention this to have hon. members see its significance. Then, with
634	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
respect to the production and delivery of important materials, equipment and supplies necessary to our war effort, I have only to point out that to state in public what we have shipped and are shipping in the way of supplies, where they have gone or are going, is simply to give to the enemy the kind of information he is most anxious above all else to have.
I agree with what my hon. friend has said about the position of private members in this house. Every member is anxious to become more actively interested in Canada's war effort. I think one thing my hon. friend said this afternoon is very much to be emphasized. There is no greater part that hon. members can take in Canada's war effort than it is possible for them to play in their own constituencies where they are known and trusted. They can tell the people of their constituencies all that they possibly can with respect to the war effort and what they know is needed in order to make the war effort successful. But that is not enough. Hon. members are right in feeling that they would wish, that the house itself would wish to make its own contribution to the war effort in some way. The government, I can assure hon. members, is most anxious to have it do so in any way that is not going to make for confusion but will help to carry forward this tremendous task. I can assure hon. members that we desire their fullest cooperation.
This afternoon my hon. friend made a suggestion which appeals very strongly to me for more reasons than one; first of all, because of the proposal itself, and also because it is the procedure which on this very perplexing matter has been adopted at Westminster. In the parliament at Westminster the government has been faced with exactly the same situation we are faced with here. They have of course a much larger number of private members than we have in this House of Commons and their private members are as anxious to make their contribution as are our private members. They are on the firing line, and one can imagine the intensity of feeling there must be with respect to the desire on the part of every man to do what he can during the hours he is in parliament as well as when he is at home in his constituency.
The British government are making expenditures on a much vaster scale than we are, and human nature is the same in the United Kingdom as it is in Canada with regard to all classes and conditions of men and how they may act in respect of government contracts and large quantities of money and supplies at a time of war. They are just as anxious as we are to see that whatever is done is done

openly, honestly and above-board and to bring to time summarily anyone who seeks to profit by opportunities which war conditions may afford. But they have not thought it advisable to set up standing committees of the character which was originally proposed by the leader of the opposition. They have however, established a committee on national expenditure which has been given certain powers and which has been functioning now for almost a year, having been set up on December 12, 1939. On November 7, 1939, Sir Archibald Sinclair, who was then leading the Liberal party in the House of Commons, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could make any statement on the appointment of a committee on national expenditure on the lines suggested in a motion to which my hon. friend referred this afternoon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I read the order of reference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This motion reads:
That a select committee be set up, similar to that appointed by parliament in July, 1917, to examine the current expenditure defrayed out of monies provided by parliament for the defence services, including civil defence, and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government, may be effected therein.
Sir John Simon in his reply outlined briefly the measures already being taken to ensure economy, but added that he appreciated the desire of the house to make its own contribution to this end. He said:
The government consider that this object would be best attained by setting up a select committee on national expenditure with terms of reference which would broadly follow those under which the select committee was set up during the last war. The select committee would deal with expenditure connected with the war whether civil or military.
He said that the committee would be set up at an early date, and the committee was set up on December 12, upon a motion being passed. Before I quote the motion, may I say that after careful consideration of the whole matter the government is prepared to introduce a similar motion into this house and to follow the procedure which has been adopted by Westminster with respect to war expenditure. As the leader of the opposition has rightly said, the committee on public accounts is not adequate at the present time to deal with the vast expenditures that have to be considered. The committee on public accounts has referred to it the report of the auditor general which contains expenditures of the previous year. My hon. friend, the

The Address-Division
leader of the opposition, wants a committee which will have the power to review current expenditures.
May I say, speaking for myself and I believe for all my colleagues, that anything that is going to assist the government in seeing that the right control is exercised over the expenditure of monies in connection with this war will be more than welcomed by the administration. I want to add that whoever is appointed to such a committee ought to take his responsibilities very seriously. Great care will have to be taken in the selection of the personnel. If there is a genuine desire to do the thing that is helpful, I am sure that great good can come out of the existence of a committee of the kind. If, on the other hand, the committee is to be made an instrument for party warfare, I cannot conceive of anything that could be worse.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I interrupt my right hon. friend to say that nothing was further from my thoughts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite so. I have not said that my hon. friend-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not looking for scandal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe that my hon. friend is wholly sincere in what he says. I would not have made the remark I did had I thought that he was not. But I repeat that if a committee of the kind were to be used as an instrument of party political warfare, I cannot conceive of a way of working greater injury to Canada's war effort. But a committee which takes its responsibilities seriously, and will assist the government in exercising a control over the expenditures which are being made, keeping on the government the responsibility for policy, but being free to make suggestions that will be helpful and constructive, should be of the greatest possible service. It was that kind of committee which on December 12 last was set up at Westminster, and this is the motion under which action was taken:
That a select committee be appointed to examine the current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
I propose, Mr. Speaker, as soon as parliament reassembles after the adjournment, to introduce a motion in those words in this House of Commons. I say, after the adjournment, because I think hon. members will agree that we can much better begin establishing a select committee of this house at
the moment of continuing its regular proceedings, rather than at the beginning of the Christmas recess or within a month of meeting shortly thereafter. I hope this assurance will meet with general acceptance.
In taking my seat, may I again thank my hon. friend and those who were with him for the manner in which they discussed this whole question with my colleagues and myself, and also for the constructive suggestion which he has made in this particular.


Georges Parent: The question is on the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a few words to say about this amendment. I express my great surprise about the way in which it is drafted. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) follows the practice of his former leader and flees away when I start to speak. I remember the time when "R. B." was leader of the Tory party; as soon as I rose he went out, and the same practice is followed by his illustrious successor.
But, sir, I will take the amendment as it is; I find it an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people, and especially the farmers. Here is that masterpiece of Toryism-I put on my glasses and I will read between

the lines. They all run away, they are all afraid, they are hares, they run from the battle, they are all from Taranto. Here is the amendment:
. . . that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.
What does that mean? Nobody knows. It reminds me of the time when Mr. Bennett's Minister of Labour was introducing some legislation, and when I asked him the meaning of that legislation he was unable to answer; he did not know. When I asked the leader of the opposition to-day for the meaning of the words "realistic attitude" that he used in his speech, he was just as dumb as Wesley Gordon was when I was asking questions of him in the glorious time when Mr. Bennett was in supreme command.
The Canadian people want information, but information that can be useful, useful to us as members of parliament for the good of the soldiers, sailors and airmen of this country. A distinction should be made, and it shall be made, between a check on the total expenditure on the war and information about the movements of the troops and so on. The hon. gentleman did not make any such distinction.
I do approve, however, of one of the suggestions of the opposition, that of having a secret sitting at which members of parliament could be fully informed with regard to all phases of our war effort.
Part of the information they insist on getting is information that should be given, but in camera, not in public.
I am surprised that of the great men in the front line of the Tory party none has added very much distinction to the discussions that have taken place in this chamber. What are the words of the amendment?
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people . . .
I could read what the dictionary says about the word "soothe." It mentions "to soothe a wound," but this government did not wound the Canadian people. The wound was inflicted by the Bennett regime, of which the leader of the opposition was a member for a few years. This government has had to patch up that wound. I wonder whether I should have used the word "soothe" when the leader of the opposition was turning his back to you, Mr. Speaker, and making some sounds across the floor of the house. No one knows what is meant by that word, and I fear that something is wrong; I fear there was

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
some malicious intent on the part of someone in not explaining it to the leader of the opposition. Then the amendment continues:
.	.	. thereby creating a false sense of
security. . . .
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how this government creates a false sense of security. Again nobody knows what that means; the leader of the opposition and all the marvellous speakers of the Tory party who have bored this chamber for so long have not explained that. Then it goes on:
. . . when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.
Was it a clear-cut call to action when, at Charlottetown, the leader of the opposition betrayed information that the British government had asked to be kept secret? My right hon, chief was amazed that the hon. gentleman should disclose such information.
Then there is the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who is gifted with the eloquence of an auctioneer, who wanted to launch a convention to replace the present leader of the opposition. It is not a year since the hon. gentleman was chosen, and already they wish to replace him. Whom could they get? The leader of the opposition tried another idea in Quebec; he sent all the defeated Tory candidates a questionnaire asking what they thought of him. I could tell him what was said about him by the two official organs of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, Le Canada of Montreal and Le Soleil of Quebec. I conceived it to be my duty to include those quotations in a letter which was published in the best weekly issued in Canada, Le Saint Laurent of Riviere du Loup. This is what Le Canada of September 12 had to say about the hon. gentleman, who was one of the nonentities of the Bennett government:
Mr. Hanson is against everything, even common sense.
I might translate that roughly as " Mr. Hanson is against everything, even common sense." Later the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) stated that Hitler was the latest recruit to the Tory ranks; a fine compliment. Through the medium of the local newspaper I said to my electors:
In advising the prime minister not to adopt the Conservative leader's suggestions, your representative sought to avoid for his leader the embarrassment of accepting counsel from a tory "who is against everything, even common sense" (according to Le Canada) and "who has Hitler as a recruit" (according to the Minister for Air).
Then the great Quebec Liberal organ, Le Soleil, had this to say:
The tory leader shows his true calibre.
Mr. Hanson's importance derives principally from the position he is occupying temporarily at the House of Commons, that of acting leader of the opposition. In this capacity, notwithstanding his harum-scarum nature, he is treated with respect by the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who informs him, on occasion, of facts and projects of a confidential nature. Mr. Hanson has just taken undue advantage of this privilege, in the hope of putting himself in the limelight and of striking a treacherous blow at the government.
(Editorial of Oct. 12.)
We have not sufficient space to reproduce here all the editorials Le Canada has since devoted to the leader of the Conservative opposition. Here are the choicest titles: Oct. 14-"Mr. Hanson at the head of his class: first in the Fifth." This editorial purports to state that if Mr. Hanson had spoken thus in England he would now find himself behind the barbed wire of a concentration camp, as leader of the fifth column. On October 16, Le Canada calls him a "circus clown" and on October 18, the same newspaper wonders: "What is delaying Mr. Hanson's resignation?" This edition also contains, on the same page, a second editorial on the subject. It is entitled: "De Profundis", and concludes with: "Here lies Mr. Hanson."
The translation of the last sentence is "Here lies Mr. Hanson." I attach no great importance to that, but the newspapers of my province have recited the de projundis on him; let him now rest in peace. But there is something to this amendment; the second paragraph reads:
And this house further regrets that despite the serious condition of agriculture no effective action is proposed to alleviate that condition and to ensure to the Canadian farmer a just, fair and reasonable return for his products.
I do not wish to do what I blame others for doing, Mr. Speaker; I do not want to turn my back to the chair. We must remember the time when R. B. Bennett was Prime Minister, the time of the iron hand. We discussed butter in this house; butter, which had been the subject matter of lengthy discussions on the hustings throughout the country; butter, that golden treasure which was melting away and returning no benefit to the farmer. The house met; the then Minister of Agriculture was the late Mr. Weir. The Bennett government introduced some , legislation. They put a high tariff on butter; and the higher the tariff went, the lower fell the price of butter. My hon. friends behind me remember those days. We were asking questions of the then Minister of Agriculture. I was asking R. B. Bennett who had imported such vast quantities of
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

butter from New Zealand and Australia, because I had information, which I knew to be accurate, that this was being done by the Tory party.
I am glad to welcome my hon. friend the leader of the opposition back to his seat. He must remember also that when I asked his then leader, the leader of the Tory party, who had imported such vast quantities of butter, causing prices to fall lower and lower, he would not answer. It was a secret; apparently it was impossible to learn who had done that. But everyone knew that the Tory party had put some money in the market for speculation, and that the lower the prices of commodities went, the higher became the profit for the Tory electoral fund. Butter was purchased by the Tory party in Australia and in New Zealand, so that the price of our own butter fell. Hon. members opposite, who were then sitting in the house, will recall that when I asked questions of the then Minister of Agriculture he was unable to answer them-and neither was R. B. Bennett himself, or Wesley Gordon, or Sir George Perley, or Mr. Sauve, the then Postmaster General, or Mr. Duranleau, or the present leader of the opposition when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce.
These are the gentlemen who say that farm products are not selling well enough to-day. What is their record? Can we ever forget it? In those days farmers received the rock-bottom price for butter. That drop in price began in the first year of the Bennett regime, due to the high tariffs which were then advocated for the relief of the farmer. They did not dare speak about it afterward.
Then there was an imperial conference of some kind before which Mr. Bennett spoke about the possibilities and potentialities of hogs and bacon. Well, he never had success such as the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has had, in selling to Great Britain large quantities of bacon, for which the farmers will receive reasonable prices. We want to have some real help for the farmers. We find it strange-to use a mild expression-to hear hon. members opposite refer again to the plague which may affect the farmers, especially in view of the fact that conditions were so bad under their management. "A just, fair and reasonable return for his product"-that was the language used by all Tory spokesmen on the hustings during the campaign of 1930.
I see in the house many of my hon. friends who defeated Bennett ministers. For instance, I see the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. 
O'Neill) who conducted a wonderful campaign, and did particularly well in his constituency. He was victor in the cause of Liberalism. And there were so many others I cannot name them all. They did well because the people-farmers and labour-were fed up with the policies of the Bennett regime.
Someone may tell me that this kind of talk is untimely, that it is uncalled for in a time of war. But my point is that those who were incompetent in time of peace cannot be geniuses in time of war, just because we are at war. Those who have been no good in ordinary times cannot be excellent in extraordinary times.
I am reminded of what was said to me about the Tory leader in the senate on an occasion when he was being praised most lavishly. The person speaking to me was relating that the Tory leader in the senate had been born under a special star, and that his gifts were as numerous as the stars of the sky and the sands of the sea. I was surprised, and asked for more detailed information on the point. I said, "By the way, what have 'been the great accomplishments of that illustrious gentleman? Can you name in his whole political career a single accomplishment which has served the Canadian people, one piece of legislation which has been useful to the country?" "Well," he said, "he has been very unlucky." That was the description of the leader of the Tory party in the senate by one of his best friends.
Why should we pay any attention to the demands which come from the other side? The people in this country say that the Liberal party has a mandate to govern in war time, and we ought not to pay any attention to demands by the leader of the opposition or any of his satellites. The government should carry on the war effort boldly and honestly and get rid of all those Tories who are a perpetual nuisance and who are committing sabotage in the departments in which they hold important positions. Get rid of the Tories-that should be our watchword. Get rid of all the Tories who infest some of the war departments, and then we will receive no blame from them. Why do they blame the government? They do so because it is too tolerant with them. The government does not deprive them of their positions. Well, let us put them all out; let us put all the Tories out. Let us get rid of them, in order that we may have a sane administration in all departments of government in Canada.
Of course they are greedy for more power. The leader of the opposition knows what I mean. I could name some Tories who have

The Address-Division
insulted my leader and members of the government, but who are now deciding from whom goods for soldiers shall be bought. Everybody knows that. When there is a leak in the Department of National Defence, it comes from a Tory who is there-and I could name him. They are there, and they are impudent. Not only that, but when Tories are in power, Liberals can get nothing; no Liberal can be appointed. But when the Liberals are in power, we hear the Tory members saying, "Oh, let us have no politics; there should be no patronage." And they raise their hands, as if they were praying, and one would be led to believe that they are praying all the time.
We know that the people of Canada have judged them; they had enough of their rule. My only suggestion is that the government should keep away from bad company. I ask the government to pay no attention whatever to any suggestion from the leader of the opposition respecting four months of training or anything else. I presume his suggestions are made in good faith, but they are inspired by those in the department who desire more power so that they may betray the ministers they should serve faithfully. That is all.


Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, like our beloved sovereigns who, every day, disregarding great dangers, convey their most compassionate consolations to the unfortunate victims of the London bombardments, Her Royal Highness, Princess Alice, wife of our most distinguished Governor General, has also shown commiseration for the suffering which has so cruelly stricken the population of the Magdalen islands, which bear the heavy brunt of these war consequences. Her merciful appeal to the population of Canada in her speech to the Women's club on October 7 last has warmly cheered and deeply moved the hearts of these unfortunate people. In their name I have the honour to extend to her royal highness the tribute of their most respectful and sincere gratitude.
Such examples of great heroic magnitude and Christian charity, as given by Buckingham Palace and Rideau Hall, are an infallible token of survival in the most crucial tests. They strengthen the ties of a people to the present regime and the liberties they enjoy under it by convincing them more firmly that, between two contending forces the British might, based on the immutable principles of love and justice, will assuredly triumph over the other force, sustained as it is by hate and by the tyrannical yoke of a despotic Gestapo.
Mr. Speaker, if I felt I should address this house in English, the language spoken by the majority of hon. members-and in spite of difficulties my pleasure in doing so is very great-it is as a tribute to my Englishspeaking electors of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands, whose great patriotism in the present war I wish to praise.
The various ministers of the crown have eloquently submitted to us accounts of our war effort. May I submit to this house another account, that of the contribution to that same war effort of the most ancient section of the country, the county of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands, which I take great pride in representing here.
The patriotism of our population has not weakened since 1914, when it has given more than one complete regiment. The long and glorious list of its sons who died on the field of honour, and whose names one can read on the pedestal of the monument erected at Gaspe in their memory, is sufficiently eloquent
[Mr. Pouliot.J
to render unnecessary adding anything to its testimonial.
At the outbreak of the war, in September, 1939, men of all ages and coming from all walks of life volunteered their services in numbers so large that they could not all be accepted at once. Of over 1,300 volunteers serving in the army, and a few in the navy, there are many French-Canadians, but the majority belong to the Loyalist stock and to the other English-speaking Gaspesians. The population of only 8,000 of Gaspe and the surrounding district has alone supplied some 600 volunteers. At Grosse-Ile and Entry island to the Magdalen islands, all the young men and many married men have volunteered their services and are serving in the army or in the navy. If we count those from the other islands, they are in all about 200 in number.
In proportion, these enlistments from Gaspe and the Magdalen islands must hold the record for the whole of Canada. Had all parts of the dominion furnished volunteers in the ratio supplied from Gaspe, Canada to-day would have for overseas service an army of over 320,000 men. And above this contribution in men, our population, according to its means, has heavily subscribed to the war loan and has contributed to welfare societies such as the Red Cross.
This readiness of the Gaspesian people in helping the country during critical hours can be explained by the peculiarities of their character in constant contact with dangers which are their daily companion and allurement.
One anecdote, out of thousands, will convince and help hon. members in reaching a deeper understanding of this class of labourers whose valour and merits are generally too much ignored. I will relate a drama of the sea which happened at Riviere-au-Renard, on September 28, 1936.
On that day the fishing was good and fishers had kept the sea until they were compelled by a tempest to come back to the shore, but one boat continued to battle the high seas. It was the two brothers, Phileas and Peter Tapp, reputed for their courage and ability, who were still fishing.
At three o'clock they decided to make for the shore. Three miles from the shore their overladen boat was capsized by a huge breaker and the fearless fishermen were plunged into the sea.
On the shore their comrades and other people witnessed in consternation this horrible drama. The infuriated sea, lashed by a strong wind, which is customary on the coast in

The Address-Mr. Roy
the fall, seemed a challenge to the bravery of these men to come to the rescue of their brothers.
However, the sad victory of the sea was not to be complete. On the crest of a wave we could see the two castaways clinging, one to the stern and the other to the sternpost of the capsized boat, with the grip of their last hope. Four young and sturdy fishermen, Jules, Maurice, Isaac Dufresne and Ephrem Couillard, fortified by their courage, succeeded in launching another boat a few miles below and in reaching the scene. After three hours of struggle this boat was wrecked as it reached the shore. But Phileas Tapp was saved, although, unfortunately, his poor brother was lost.
Even on the battlefields could feats of such heroism and positive bravery be accomplished? The whole history of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands is made up of these and still more pathetic episodes. Every autumn we have to deplore these disasters and often would-be rescuers perish in trying to help imperilled fishermen.
Unfortunately, this admirable population, so full of virtue and of the most generous patriotism, is ill-paid for its devotion and sacrifice. The Magdalen islands settlement is battling against the pangs of the worst misery. Precarious as their situation was last Bummer, it has now become desperate. May I tell the house what this situation is and what has caused it.
The lobster catch was good enough, but the sale at the minimum price fixed by the government resulted in a deficit. The codfish catch was sold at a better price, but the sale was very small and that of mackerel was a lamentable failure. A few thousand barrels were sold at a loss and the rest, some
20.000	barrels, is a complete loss. About
60.000	boxes of smoked herring are on dealers' hands, if not sold at a loss.
This is the balance sheet of the expired season which has left the fishermen in debt and without any means to secure such essentials as flour and fuel to survive during seven long winter months, when there is no possibility whatever on the islands of earning a single cent. The old saying, "the end of fishing is the end of eating," is now an acute actuality.
To these distressing prospects is added another one. In a few days, navigation with the islands will be closed and it will be practically impossible to come to the rescue of this population before spring.
The Red Cross made a survey in the beginning of November in order to give assistance, but it is not likely that this society will be in a position to give enough assistance
in fuel and flour to meet the needs. It must be remembered that there is no fuel whatever in the islands. Meanwhile, what are the governments, federal and provincial, doing to relieve this distress? Have they answered the numerous calls for help from local authorities, the press and, yes, from Her Royal Highness Princess Alice? Have not these people, who are a component part of confederation, paid their taxes and given soldiers for the defence of the country and of democracy?
Moreover, is it not true that the state is helping other classes of producers whose product is undersold? The law of the land permits the granting of direct relief to destitutes and the spending of moneys for relief works. Why is it that these two remedies have not been applied since the government has not deemed it proper -to accept the advice of those who advocated a minimum price on fish, as on wheat, or the purchase of the surplus as has been done for apples?
There are two reasons which explain the indifference and lack of sympathy of the two governments for these destitute fishermen. The first is probably the fact that these fishermen are not sufficiently known, nor are their merits appreciated. The second is, perhaps, that the county is represented in the Ottawa and Quebec parliaments by an opposition member. In the first -case the anecdote I related a few moments ago should help in reviving a more fraternal sympathy for these people. In the second case, may I say that the time is ill-chosen to exercise sanctions of a partisan nature against a population which accepts so generously its great share of the war sacrifice.
A population so well bred, and answering with such readiness the call of duty, should not be ignored and chastized for its political opinions or abandoned to its fate when abnormal circumstances drive -it into destitution. Let the government take urgent and necessary measures to relieve most distressing cases, and let it also strive to remove the causes of all these evils.
Coming to the speech from the throne, may I now discuss the most essential aspect of our war effort. One of the striking notes of the government's policy, in recent days, is the increasingly insistent appeal to national unity, and the tribute to the loyalty of the province of Quebec. It is well and fair to extol our loyalty; but care should be taken not to give the impression that our loyalty has been revived or is of recent date. No; our loyalty is not of yesterday, nor is it any deeper than it was in the past.
The mention of such illustrious dates as 1787, 1812 and 1849 is sufficient to recall the fact that the retention of Canada under the British allegiance is due to the loyalty of the



The Address-Mr. Roy
French-Canadians to the British crown. I need not point out the value of this service rendered then by my race. I may say, however, it has made confederation possible, and justified the fathers of confederation in saying that there are no victors and no conquered race in Canada.
As a vivid example of our loyalty and patriotism, one can mention the admirable attitude taken in the present war by the greatest and most distinguished French-Cana-dian of our times, His Eminence Cardinal Villeneuve.
Three reasons explain the greatness and persistence of our patriotism. First, it has been tested and has suffered. Second, French-Canadians, having remained royalists, are loyal to the British crown by reason of the fact that politically everything separated them from France of the revolution. Lastly, we cherish Canada more than others because we cherished Canada long before others did and with a more exclusive Canadianism. Our Canadianism which cautious and wise men have always upheld in the past has nothing of the dangerous excesses of that campaign inspired by partisan motive waged in Quebec in the last twenty-five years. After such a campaign the wise and rational stand taken by Quebec in the present war is highly surprising. We must realize that French-Canadians have not been led to revolt by demagogues as they were at the time of the former national registration in 1917.
Let the government of the day, and more especially the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), take this into account in recalling the past to which they were no strangers. This political past explains why the government feels the need of appealing for national unity and loyalty, and the remarks I now make are in support of the following amendment which I propose to submit:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that by reason of striking contradictions between your advisers on principles which should guide our war policy and war effort this house regrets that your advisers do not give sufficient guarantees to ensure national unity.
We also respectfully submit to Your Excellency that by reason of the fact that Your Excellency's advisers from the province of Quebec in this house have asked a mandate in pledging themselves to participate in the war in a moderate, free and voluntary manner, this house is of the opinion that these advisers have no mandate to carry this war effort to the ultimate limit.
Mr. Speaker, has national unity always existed? Is it yet existing in the midst of the cabinet and the ministerial ranks? Has the Liberal party always worked for its

realization? Was it in the interests of national unity to propose during the last war, on January 17, 1918, the breaking of confederation as it was proposed in the Quebec legislature by the Hon. J. N. Francoeur who, with the support of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), was elected federal member for Lotbiniere in 1937? Was it in the interests of national unity to charge the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Arthur Meighen) with being the executioner of the French-Canadians, as was done in 1921 by the then mayor of Montreal, Mr. Mederic Martin, who is now a Liberal member of the Quebec legislative council; or to allow the most influential Liberal paper of Quebec, Le Soleil, to say on October 24, 1925, that Mr. King's policy is "not one cent will be spent, not one man will be mobilized for the empire"?
Was it in the interests of national unity to raise the Turkish war scare in 1926, and the Egyptian war scare in the 1930 elections, and to allow to be printed on July 25, 1930, in La Presse a false London cable entitled, "Conscription Menace", with a warning from Senator Raoul Dandurand, the Liberal leader in the Senate, a warning which has not yet been denied? Was it in the interests of national unity in the last Quebec provincial elections to raise the cry, "A vote for Duplessis is a vote for conscription"?
Therefore it is not surprising that those whose political fortune has been made by these appeals to prejudice feel the need to protect the national unity for which in the past they had very little consideration.
Since the government is asking for unity in mind and motive, is it not fair to ask whether this unity is in the mind and motives of the government? Is there unity in the Liberal mind when Hon. Mr. Pattullo, Liberal premier of British Columbia, stated on August 9, 1939, that if Great Britain were at war Canada would help her to the last man and to the last dollar; and, when the same Hon. J. N. Francoeur, who had proposed during the last war the breaking of confederation, stated at St. Fabien on December 19, 1937, " I am emphatically opposed to the spending of one cent to equip and send one man to foreign wars?" No sooner had this statement been made than the Minister of Justice said, " Mr. Francceur's cause is mine; his victory will be mine." And on the polling day, December 28, the Prime Minister telegraphed Mr. Francoeur, " The electors of Lotbiniere have voted as Canadians who place national interest above all."
What can be said about unity in mind of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who on February 6 last stated at Markinch that the Liberal party was opposed to con-

The Address-Mr. Roy
scription of wealth and conscription of men even for the defence of Canada? This is a Canadian Press report which has never been denied.
Did the Minister of Justice not state in Quebec on December 13, 1938: "Instead of going to war abroad we will stay here?" And did his colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), not affirm on February 28 last: " Our first line of defence is on the English channel?"
Again, what can be said on unity in mind of these other two ministers, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) who, at St. Fabien on December 13, 1937, said: " I went to the war, I came back and will not go again and will not send anyone to the next war," and the Minister of National Defence, who stated in Montreal in September last: " Canada in this war is at the side of Great Britain and the Canadian first line is in England?"
Can we find any unity in mind between the Minister of Public Works and his leader? None whatever. The Minister of Public Works declared in Montreal on January 14, 1938, that in the event of Great Britain being at war with Italy he would say to Canadians, "Stay at home;" and he added "This is my government's policy."
The government's appeal for national unity would be more convincing were the Prime Minister trying to reconcile the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) with the Minister of Public Works. Speaking in New York on October 24 last, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services said: "We have sent men and ships and guns and planes over the seas, and we shall send more and still more, so long as there is a single Canadian dollar left to be spent or a solitary Canadian citizen to take his stand in defence of freedom." Only three days later, the Minister of Public Works, speaking at St. Ours, stated: "We will never approve compulsory enlistment for overseas service."
It appears that unity in mind is also lacking between the Prime Minister and his colleague the Premier of Quebec, Hon. Mr. Godbout, who, at Plessisville on November 17 last, stated: " The mobilization act is the most anti-imperialist law put in force by the Canadian government."
To lead his party out of this other valley, the valley of contradictions, the Prime Minister should try to reconcile his own statements on the main object of this present war effort. In fact, in this house on November 12 last he stated:
. . . it was not this party, it was not the members on this side of the house that created
a "Canada first" policy and tried to educate the Canadian people in their attitude towards interimperial relations on a "Canada first" point of view. At the time the "Canada first" cry was raised I protested against it as strongly as I could.
That is to be found on page 40 of Hansard for this session.
But, speaking on foreign policy in this house on March 30, 1939, the Prime Minister stated:
We are and will remain Canadians, devoted, first and last, to the interests of Canada. . . .
In view of such conflicting declarations it is not surprising that in Montreal on
January 15, 1938, Hon. Fernand Rinfret should have said:
When, in the past, there was participation it was in spite of us, Liberals! We, Liberals, we are for Canada, for Canada after and Canada only.
When has the Prime Minister protested as strongly as he could against this cry of his own colleague? After having been spurred by so many contradictory statements and pledges by the Liberal party, we readily realize the urgency of appealing for national unity. Circumstances seem to have favoured Canada in keeping this party in office at the last elections, because that is the most effective way to keep it under censure. In peace time the Liberal party has constantly opposed participation in foreign wars, and I can hardly understand how it can now change its policy to one of participation to the extreme limit. The Minister of Public Works tried to explain that when speaking at St. Ours on October 28 last. This is what he said:
The government policy has not changed and will* not change.
It must be one thing or the other. The government has fooled the province of Quebec if its war policy then was its policy of to-day, or it is fooling the rest of Canada now if its present policy is still its antiimperialist policy preached in the past. The truth is that in every electoral campaign since 1917 the Libera] party has promised throughout Canada, with particular insistence in the province of Quebec, that Canada will not any more participate in any empire wars. After having declared war on Germany in 1939, it altered its former attitude in the last Quebec provincial and federal election campaigns by promising that there would be moderate participation only. To-day according to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, the limit will be reached only when there is not a single Canadian dollar left to be spent or a solitary Canadian citizen to participate. What an evolution!
The Address-Mr. Roy

It has been said and repeated many times that the Liberal party is a party of expediency. Its greatest electoral successes have been achieved in times of distress by the exploitation of the miseries and sacrifices of the population and of its good faith. This shameless opportunism should not guide the policy of the government in war time, but it seems that the government is pursuing two efforts, the first that of winning the war and the second that of maintaining the huge electoral machine of this oligarchy which controls everything.
There should be only one effort based on the dollars and sacrifices of the poor and the rich; that is the effort for victory. The other should be immediately sacrificed to the first; loyalty and patriotism require it. Since in the name of Canada we are asked to sacrifice our liberty, our wealth and our lives in the service of democracy, have we not the right to ask the government to abandon its partisan ambitions? It is necessary that we ensure national unity, and that must be realized at once and at any cost. To do this it is essential that a policy be clearly and frankly defined which will reconcile the conflicting opinions which it would be dangerous to allow to exist any longer in the cabinet and in the nation. What good would be all the sacrifices generously made in our country to ensure the triumph of democracy over oligarchy in Europe if, after the war, we had to admit that democracy had been killed in Canada by the poison of the oligarchy which is being imposed upon us?
In support of the amendment I wish to quote an editorial from the New York Times of October 9, following Mr. Churchill's famous speech:
It is one of Mr. Churchill's supreme gifts to democracy that he has put furtiveness and concealment aside in dealing with his countrymen.
Nothing is so anti-democratic as furtiveness and concealment between the government and the nation. Duplicity and furtiveness are the Liberal past. Duplicity and concealment are its present. For these reasons I have the honour, as a National-Conservative-Independent member, to move the amendment I read during the course of my speech.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the name
again, please?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: National-Conservative-Independent.


Georges Parent: Has the hon. member a
seconder?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I have proposed the amendment to the house, and all those hon. members who made so much noise. . .


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as you are
well aware, I had not the slightest intention of taking part in this debate. Although the amendment of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) has not found a seconder, I believe it my duty to say at least a few words. I shall be brief.
With the first part of the hon. member's address I am almost completely in agreement. We sympathize with the distress of the fishermen of the county of Gaspe, and in helping them we certainly will be happy to second the efforts of the various associations and even those of my hon. friend.
In one particular, however, I must take objection to what he says. He stated that the government did not come to the help of the people of Gaspe because they are represented in this house by a member of the opposition. My hon. friend is, to some extent, boasting. As he well knows he does not represent the majority of the people of the county of Gaspe, so his argument fails to the ground. The huge majority of the electors of Gaspe are behind this government. The hon. member was elected by an unfortunate accident. There were two strong Liberal candidates in the field who had divided the Liberal vote. I predicted on the night of the election that, because of that division, the constituency of Gaspe would be the only one which would send an opposition member to the House of Commons. That happened.
My hon. friend is welcome in the house; but he must know he is here because of a division in the Liberal ranks. So the hon. member has no right ho say that we are not listening to the claims of Gaspe for political reasons, because Gaspe is Liberal, and will prove to be Liberal at the next election. I ask my hon. friend in all sincerity and in all earnestness if he thinks that his speech has contributed anything toward helping Canada in this tremendous conflict. Has he helped in any way?
Here we have a gentleman who has just voted in favour of an amendment which I shall read-and his electors will know all about that. That amendment states in part:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.
My 'hon. friend has voted for that amendment. He thinks that the government is doing

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
nothing in its war effort, and that we are lulling the Canadian people into a false sense of security. He believes that we are not giving a clear-cut call for action, as my hon. friend would like to have it. Yet this is the speech he makes in the House of Commons and this is his clear-cut call to action.
My hon. friend's speech-and he must have seen it himself, because he is intelligent-has created a painful impression everywhere in the house, even among his friends who sit round him.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Yes, but not for the reasons the right hon. minister thinks.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it has created a painful impression, and I do not think my hon. friend's dreams, after this effort of his, will be happy to-night when he goes to bed. I congratulate the House of Commons of Canada on the fact that there is only one man who would move this amendment-only one man.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad he is a French-Canadian, though.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member suggests that my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), my other colleagues from Quebec and I are creating disunity in our province. He knows well that the province of Quebec has never been united as she is to-day. All those prophets who had stated and written that if war broke out, confederation would be destroyed and the country divided, have proved to be false prophets. Instead of dividing the country, the war has united it, and the province of Quebec is solidly behind this government. When I make that statement I do not speak politically; I speak rather of parliament as a whole, and indicating that my hon. friend is alone in his view.
Quebec is solidly behind the effort of Canada in this conflict, and we are going to stay solidly behind that effort-no matter what may be the sniping campaign of those disgruntled politicians who try to divide a united country. The hon. member for Gaspe has had the audacity-and I ask pardon for using the word-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: "Audacity" is not contrary to parliamentary rules; the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) uses words much stronger than that. I say that the hon. member for Gaspe has had the audacity to say that during the last provincial campaign there was a cry in Quebec that a vote for Duplessis was a vote for conscription. Is the hon. member serious in that? Every
hon. member knows-because we all read the newspapers-that during the campaign in Quebec it was said that a vote for Godbout and Lapointe was a vote for conscription. But the hon. member would have us believe that the people of Canada at large were all wrong, that a vote for Duplessis was a vote for participation in the war, and that that was what was being preached during the last provincial campaign. My hon. friend does not believe seriously that he can make the people of Canada swallow that terrible frog?
Then my hon. friend continues to say that during the by-election in Lotbiniere I was supporting Mr. Francoeur. Yes, I am proud to have done so. But the hon. member forgot to say, as everyone who knows anything about recent events must know, that the candidate against Mr. Francoeur was a separatist, a nationalist, an independent, named Mr. Bouchard, who opposed me in the last general election. May I be permitted to say that he was a separatist, an anti-participationist, an anti-war candidate in Quebec East. A Conservative candidate had been selected on the day my good friend Doctor Manion came to address the electors of Quebec. He could not decently endorse Mr. Bouchard, and, as a result, spoke for the other gentleman. But that other gentleman did not open committee rooms, and withdrew two days before polling, asking his friends to vote for the separatist Bouchard. That is the sort of gentleman with whom my hon. friend is associated in Quebec. No wonder he is alone in the House of Commons!
I am not saying anything against Conservatives in the province of Quebec. Heaven knows I would not do that, because they voted for us. They were ashamed of those who were opposing us. That is the reason why my hon. friend, alone, of his clan, is here in the house to-night. He is here because there were two Liberals in the field.
No; in the provincial election of which he spoke and at the general election the Conservatives in Quebec did not vote for gentlemen like my hon. friend, who were running in all the sixty-five constituencies, but preferred to vote for the Liberal candidates and for the participation of Canada in this war. They voted for unity within Canada in this time of terrible conflict. I do not wish to lengthen my remarks, because I believe I have said enough to show that in his speech to-night my hon. friend has not done what he should have done as a representative of his province.
We are proud of the part our province is playing in this conflict. We are proud to be associated with Britain. If there is one
646	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
thing my fellow countrymen in Quebec are proud of at this time, it is that they are British as well as Canadian. I have tried to do my duty to my province. My colleagues know that they have done their duty.
The only people in Quebec who at the present time are opposed to the war work of this government are the communists. There may be some others, but they are afraid to express their views. The communists are secretly distributing circulars, and they are calling me names. My good friend, the leader of the opposition, referred to that at Charlottetown. They call me Judas Lapointe and all that sort of thing. I do not want to have the communists on my side. They do all this under cover. As the leader of the opposition said, they have sent me many anonymous letters threatening my life and threatening members of my family. But these people are cowards. When a man wants to do that sort of thing, he does not write a letter, he acts. Even if they do their dirty work, I will not mind. I am here to do my duty, and I shall do it. I shall try at all times to counteract all attacks like the one which the hon. member for Gaspe has launched to-night. I disdain that sort of thing. Let me tell him in all sincerity that as long as the people of the province of Quebec will show, as they have done on many occasions during the last three years, that they are with Cardin, Power and myself, I do not care whom the hon. member for Gaspe may be against.
Motion (Mr. Claxton) agreed to on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackepzie King the house adjourned at 10.46 p.m.
Wednesday, December 4, 1940.