[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Theodore Panos. -Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Pierre Henri Honore Pare. - Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government what, if anything, has been done for the relief of all the good Canadians who have suffered so heavily from the recent flood) in the eastern townships, particularly in Coaticook?
Mr. SPEAKER:: That is a question that must be placed on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. I think he is aware of the fact that the employees of the Marconi company in the city of Montreal are taking a vote on July 14, 15 and 16 to choose between a union of their own choice and a company union. Since the company is not allowing the vote to be taken on the premises and is refusing to cooperate with the government in this matter, and since the Minister of Munitions and Supply said a while ago that every contract awarded by his department contained a clause requiring the labour regulations to be complied with, will the government insist on the regulations being complied with and take over the plant if they are not?
Thomas Vien: That is a question as to policy which I think should be placed on the order paper.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: May I ask another question of the Minister of Labour? Since he was not allowed to answer my first question, will

he at the earliest opportunity make a statement regarding the situation existing at the Marconi plant?


Mr. MITCHELL:: I do not like the reference of my hon. friend, "since he is not allowed to make a statement." I should like to say to my hon. friend, having had some experience in industrial disputes, that I think this is not the place to settle them. Yesterday I received a telegram of commendation from a representative of the employees for the action I was taking. This information which my hon. friend has is all new to me. In the settlement of these disputes I have always been ready to cooperate with any hon. member; all she had to do was to call at my office with this information and I would see that the necessary steps were taken to correct it, if it is as stated by my hon. friend.



VACATION RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES IN CERTAIN GOVERNMENT PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I did not send notice of the question, but I think it is one which he can answer without notice. Are employees in government-owned plants which are being operated by outside management entitled to holidays with pay on the same basis as government-owned plants operated by the government?


Thomas Vien: Order. The minister has replied to a question which was asked him and which I thought should be placed on the order paper. The question which is being asked cannot be answered to-day, and it should be placed on the order paper.



SERGEANT GEORGE HICKSON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. 0. BREITHAUPT (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called there is a matter which I would like to draw to the attention of the house, and that is that a citizen of Canada, bom in Kitchener, Ontario, Sergeant George Hickson, is the first Canadian who has won two military medals in this war. He won the Distinguished Conduct Medal at Dieppe, and Colonel Ralston has just announced that the Military Medal has been won by the same brave soldier in North Africa.

Supply-External
Affairs-War Situation

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Chairman, I hesitated to say anything earlier in this debate, although the question of external affairs is one in which I am deeply interested. There is a great deal to be said in regard to the matter that was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the hon. member for North Battleford. It is amazing that any hon. member in this house could speak so lightly at this time on that question, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw did in the question he asked. It shows a callousness of mind and an emotional immaturity that is hardly understandable in an hon. member of this house.\nAs the hour is late I shall emphasize only two points. First, I believe that our future depends on working out a foreign policy along with the other nations of the world.\nThe Prime Minister this morning stated that the time was approaching when we must begin to shape the outline of the new world that is to follow after the war. It is to be regretted that he did not give us more information in regard to what the government\'s policies are. I believe the time has\n\nSupply-External Affairs\ncome when we must begin to formulate policies, and in that regard I would say our approach this time must be different from what it was in the period between the last war and the beginning of the present war.\nIf we are to have a successful international policy-and when I say "we", I mean Canada in cooperation with the other nations of the world\'-we must have a positive policy. The trouble with our policy in the period between the first world war and the second world war was that it was not a positive policy for peace; it was a negative policy to avoid war. I well remember the stock answer that we were given in the house when we asked questions about the government\'s attitude toward such matters as the Spanish affair, or about the shipment of war material to Japan. We were always told by the Prime Minister that his great concern was to avoid war, not to do anything that would give cause for offence. That was the sort of attitude that led to the present war.\nI am firmly convinced that the democratic nations of Europe, Great Britain and France particularly, although they are largely responsible for the war, did not wish war, did not want war. did not consciously prepare for it. They were set on maintaining things as they were, of maintaining their privileges, their place in the world. They allowed the aggressors to prosper in order that the armed forces of Germany would crush a workers\' revolution, of which they were afraid. Let me repeat that the essential thing in a new foreign policy to prevent war is that in the first place it will be a positive policy.\nI am very happy to-night to find myself in accord with nearly all that was said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I think he made a most excellent speech and said many things that needed to be said. I agree with the statement that we must put our trust in a system of collective security when this war is over. I believe also that we must begin building that collective security system now. I see no hope for security for Canada in any combination outside a collective security system that will give security not only to Canada but to every nation in the world.\nI was surprised this morning to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South say that the British commonwealth of nations and the United States should form an alliance, and that they should tell the world that they are forming an alliance. I admit the sincerity of the hon. member\'s approach to the question; but to my mind nothing could be more dangerous at this time than for two of the powerful partners in the united nations to say that they intend to form a close alliance. If the United States and the British commonwealth of nations, two of the large units in the united nations, will form an alliance, what is to prevent Russia and China from forming an alliance? We would have again the same old power blocks, one against the other.\nI may not know a great deal about international affairs, but I submit that that is not the way in which world peace can be maintained. We have before us a choice of one of two things. We have a choice of being a partner in a system of collective security, where each nation in that collective system will have protection against aggression from any quarter, or we can go along forming alliances and building up balances of power, which policy will ultimately lead to a war such as that in which we are now engaged. Any system of security will also have to be one based on the equality of the nations.\nThe hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said this evening that we of the British empire, or the British commonwealth of nations, whichever you like, were a very fine people, indeed, but that unfortunately the rest of the world did not have the exalted opinion of our virtues that we have ourselves. I was recently talking to a gentleman who holds a high position in this country. Some three years ago he had taken advantage of an opportunity of flying from the United Kingdom to Australia by the usual route-Lisbon, along the Mediterranean, crossing to Egypt and Persia and India, and then along the South Sea islands to Australia. He told me that in all the places visited on that trip he did not meet any native peoples who were friendly to the British empire. He said that where they were not neutral as to which of the warring nations they would have rule them, they were definitely hostile. His statement was that their attitude was largely owing to the superior attitude adopted by the people Britain had sent to those countries as governors.\nAVhat is said by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) may be quite true, namely, that by and large the British government has given government as good as or better than any other country. The fact remains, however, that the British government was ruling larger sections of the world than any other country, and governments are usually unpopular. The government you have not is usually better than the one you have.\nThe War-Sicily', 'The British empire has a great deal for which it is responsible, because it has had tremendous opportunities.\nThe hour is late, and I do not wish to say anything further, except that I want again to emphasize that if we are to reap the fruits of the sacrifices of this war; if we are to get some return in peace and prosperity for the young lives that are being sacrificed in this war, we shall get it only through a system of collective security, in which each nation- Canada included-will become a guarantor for the peace and safety of all nations.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) inquired about deliveries of coal from dealers to consumers in Toronto. The matter of deliveries of coal from dealers to consumers in Toronto and elsewhere in Canada falls within the jurisdiction of the wartime prices and trade board, through the services administrator and the coal administrator. The recommendations of the Canadian Retail Coal Dealers' Association, recently convened in Toronto, have been submitted to the coal controller of the Department of Munitions and Supply. These proposals have received serious consideration, and a course of action is being planned. The plans have been further reviewed in conjunction with the wartime prices and trade board and a representative group of Ontario and Quebec dealers, and are now receiving final consideration. Action wil be taken on these proposals in the near future.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
S6. Departmental administration, $252,525.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and other members of the house have asked me if I would make, when it came to a discussion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, a somewhat fuller statement on the war situation than it was possible to make earlier in the session. Hon. members also at different times have requested that in dealing with the estimates of external affairs I should take up particular subjects which they have specified. I have thought that it would facilitate the discussions in committee were I to anticipate as far as possible the information with which hon. members would wish to be supplied. I shall therefore first of all very briefly review significant and recent developments in the war situation, and follow that by statements with reference to the united nations organization and planning, the agencies for the direction of the war effort, the planning of the settlement which may follow the ending of
hostilities, the refugee situation, and Canada's diplomatic representation; I shall also later in the discussions give to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) the information which he asked I should let him have with respect to the Alaska highway and the pipeline from the Fort William oil fields to the refinery at White Horse.
In the earlier part of the session, and especially in the statement which I made on February 1, I reviewed in some detail the known proceedings of the Casablanca conference between Mr. Churchill, President Roosevelt, and various officers of the armed forces of both nations.
I called attention also to various developments in the means and usages of consultation and conference among the governments of the united nations. I suggested that some of the gaps, in these means of consultation, would have to be filled in as the further planning of offensive warfare progressed. What I am about to say relates to developments of the last few months and especially to the mounting successes in the offensive warfare of the united nations.
During most of the months between May of 1940 and August of 1942, the story of the war was mainly one of aggression succeeding aggression in many parts of the world. In no aspect of the general picture of the war in 1942 was there any more significant departure than the extent to which the united nations were able to take the offensive on a large and sustained scale against the axis.
In many areas throughout the summer of 1942, battle forces were so evenly matched that in any particular theatre, even a slight alteration of forces, even a slight accession of concentrated strength, might have tilted the balance towards victory or defeat. As late as mid-October, I felt it was necessary to say that there was no sign that the tide of war had definitely turned. We know now to what extent good use was made of those months from June to October in supplying reinforcements and equipment to a few areas in which a later offensive against the axis might be launched. We know now how careful and precise was the planning which, once the initiative had been taken, made it possible for the offensive to be sustained.
That offensive marked the first turning of the tide in the great battle around the world. The main offensive phase began in the southwest Pacific with the American landings in the Solomons in August, 1942. It was continued, nearer the European fortress, in the offensive launched by the British Eighth
Supply-External

Affairs-War Situation
Army, westward from: El Alamein, late in October. It received its greatest impetus from the allied landings, in Morocco and Algeria, early in November.
On May 10, in introducing a resolution of congratulation on the victory of the allied forces, I reviewed the campaign in North Africa in some detail. I shall not say more of it to-day. The results are well known. They mark the triumphal close of an allimportant chapter in the war.
Elsewhere, campaigns which were holding actions on a vast scale have been turned against the original aggressors with increasing force. In Russia, what looked' for a long time like a last-ditch defensive stand was turned into an offensive of such proportions that the entire German Sixth Army was annihilated at Stalingrad. Losses of men and materials on this front have been heavier than in any other theatre of operations. Before the end of 1942, at various points: at the eastern edge of the Black Sea, in the Don valley, on the central front, and in the northwest _ region fronting on the Baltic, steady gains had been made by Russian forces.
On January 18 of this year, while talks between Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt were continuing at Casablanca, the siege of Leningrad was lifted. Until the present week, for many weeks past, the front in Russia has been relatively quiet. During the present week, a new German offensive has been launched along nearly 200 miles of the central front. It, along with the recent intensified bombings of strategic areas over Europe, marks a place of new beginning in the war in Europe.
In the Pacific area, Japan's hold remains widespread. There have been some local gains by China in freeing her soil, though the Chinese effort is sharply limited by supplies available, and even more by the length and the difficulties of the supply routes into China. The organization of free China, and the maintenance of industries, education, social ser-vices-many of which migrated for hundreds of miles-has been one of the most resourceful answers to aggression in the history of the world.
In the great area of sea and islands in the south west Pacific, the power of Japan has been held at bay, and losses have been inflicted upon her shipping greater than her present capacity to replace it. United States forces have recently driven the Japanese out of some of their strongholds in the Solomon islands. By a determined initiative, they have

denied to Japan other bases and harbours which might be used to attack Australia or to prey upon the sea routes from the United States to Australia and the Indian ocean. Forces of Australia and New Zealand have joined in fighting the Japanese in New Guinea and other islands to the north of Australia.
One other area, much closer to our own shores, deserves more than passing mention. As a part of Japan's attempt to control the Pacific, her naval and air forces reached out, during 1942, into the Aleutian islands. The Japanese made determined efforts to build and fortify bases for submarines, seaplanes, and other aircraft at Attu and Kiska. During the latter part of May, following initial landings on May 11, Japanese forces were driven out of Attu island, which is now under American control. Kiska remains a potential centre of attack upon our shores, and upon other parts of this continent. To combat this menace, squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force, based in Alaska, have been operating continuously in conjunction with United States forces.
From all of the developments of the past eight months, from what is known of decisions taken at Casablanca and during Mr. Churchill's visit to Washington in May, and from the combined planning which continues from day to day, the picture of the war in 1943 emerges more clearly. Germany and Italy have been driven out of Africa. In addition to the loss of all her African territories, Italy has had to relinquish Pantelleria, and other islands in the central Mediterranean. The aerial and commando assaults against Italy and Sicily, against Sardinia and Crete, are parts of a single strategy which the immediate future may be expected rapidly to unfold.
The war in 1943 must be thought of as a vital part of the war of liberation of the oppressed countries of Europe, of which the liberation of the French empire in Africa was both an essential and a memorable prelude.
I shall now come to speak of the united nations organization and planning.
The supreme direction of the war, the coordination of the war effort of the united nations, and the planning of certain aspects of the post-war period and the peace, are all matters which are engaging the attention of appropriate boards or committees representing the united nations.
The united nations have no formal organization. In the prosecution of the 'war they

Supply-External Affairs-War Situation
act together by constant consultation through the usual channels between governments. These channels are supplemented by a series of international advisory bodies which have been set up to facilitate rapid agreement and speedy execution of joint plans. Canada now has very extensive machinery for consultation with the other united nations. Through the Canadian high commissioners in all the countries of the British commonwealth, through the Canadian ministers in the United States, the Soviet Union, China, and diplomatic relations with other allied governments, and through the high commissioners and ministers of the united nations represented in Ottawa, we have the equipment for constant day to day consultation regarding the conduct of the war and the framing of the peace. In addition we have the continually improving methods of consultation and cooperation by direct exchange of cables between governments.
These channels of communication have been supplemented, especially in London and in Washington, by enlarging staffs and by establishing missions representing particular Canadian departments and services, such as the joint staff mission in Washington, the representation of the Department of Munitions and Supply in both capitals, and the offices abroad of the wartime information, board. There has been a similar growtQ of specialized representation in Ottawa, particularly in the case of the United Kingdom and the United States. On the military side, I need scarcely refer to the work performed in England by General McNaughton and by the overesas headquarters of the three armed services.
Before the United States entered the war we had supplemented our methods for considering problems of common interest by the creation of a series of joint advisory bodies dealing with the defence of North America, with raw materials, with economic coordination. and with war production. To these a joint committee on agriculture has recently been added. These committees and bodies supplement but do not replace the normal methods of consultation.
Shortly after Pearl Harbor, in order to secure more rapid cooperation between the war efforts of the United States and the United Kingdom, a group of combined agencies was established. These agencies are:
1.	The combined chiefs of staff, meeting continuously in Washington, composed of the United States chiefs of staff and representatives of the British chiefs of staff;
2.	The munitions assignments boards, meeting in Washington and in London, to allocate finished war materials on strategic grounds as they become ready for delivery;
3.	The shipping adjustment boards, also meeting in Washington and in London, to regulate the pools of shipping controlled by the United States and the United Kingdom; and
4.	The combined raw materials board, meeting in Washington, charged with the duty of planning the most effective use of raw materials. There were later added two further boards, both meeting in Washington;
5.	The combined food board, and
6.	The combined production resources board.
With one exception these bodies are composed of representatives only of the United States and the United Kingdom and their chief duty is to make recommendations to these two governments in the light of the joint study of the problems before them. They are war bodies formed for special purposes to facilitate the rapid taking of decisions on matters vital to the conduct of the war.
It is essential that the high strategy of the war should be discussed by a small group in conditions of the most absolute secrecy. To avoid giving aid to our enemies, a degree of secrecy, which would be intolerable in times of peace, must surround the taking of decisions, not only on strategy but on almost every aspect of war direction. The recommendations of the combined boards frequently concern governments other than the United States and the United Kingdom. When Canadian action is required to give effect to their recommendations, these recommendations are referred to Canada for approval. The government has sought, with a considerable measure of success, to ensure that in framing their recommendations the combined boards should give the fullest consideration to the position and resources of Canada.
A Canadian joint staff mission has offices in the building which houses the combined chiefs of staff, and it is represented at discussions of direct concern to Canada. We have developed special methods of liaison with each of the combined boards. In the case of the combined food board, for example, a representative of the Canadian government participates as a full member on all the commodity subcommittees.
On one board, the combined production and resources board, Canada is represented by a full member. The Minister of Munitions and
4558	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-War Situation
Supply (Mr. Howe) is a member of this board. The board, by the way, as hon. members are aware, is meeting in Ottawa this morning.
I have outlined the chief agencies that have been established for the direction of the war effort. The government hopes that it will be found possible to have a broader basis given to some of these bodies.
Turning now to the planning of the settlement, I have said on previous occasions in this house that informal and exploratory discussions about international aspects of the settlement were constantly taking place, and that Canadian experts and officials were participating in these discussions. On matters as complex as methods for stabilizing currencies, it is obvious that there must be many preliminary talks between experts from many countries before plans can be framed for the consideration of governments. Canadian officials have participated in such talks in London and in Washington. These meetings are supplemented by the constant exchange of information through the usual inter-governmental channels. As the end of the war comes closer, such meetings will grow in number. As plans are framed, they are likely to become the subject of more formal conferences at which most, if not all, of the united nations will be represented.
The first of such conferences-the united nations conference on food and agriculture- has already been held at Hot Springs, Virginia. Hon. members will recall that on June 14, in tabling the final act of this conference, I made a statement on the general work of the conference and the programme for future action. A further united nations conference to consider the international organization of relief in the immediate postwar period will be held later in the present year.
Other meetings will follow as the preliminary discussions complete the preparatory work on each major subject for international agreement. I cannot yet indicate exactly what these subjects will be. Doubtless among them will be included the distressing and baffling problem of refugees, which -has lately been discussed at a meeting in Bermuda between representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom. I shall speak of this problem in a moment.
It is too early for me to attempt even a shadowy outline of the form of the international settlement, political and economic, which may follow the ending of hostilities. It may be useful, however, to say a word

about one of its aspects. The strong bonds which have linked the united nations into a working model of cooperation must be strengthened and developed for even greater use in the years of peace. It is perhaps an axiom of war that during actual hostilities methods must be improvised-, secrecy must be observed, attention -must be concentrated on victory. The time is approaching, however, when even before victory is won the concept of the united nations will have to be embodied in some form of international organization. On the one hand, authority in international affairs must not be concentrated exclusively in the -largest powers. On the other, authority cannot be divided equally among all the thirty or more sovereign states that comprise the united nations, or all effective authority will disappear. A number of new international institutions are likely to be set up as a result of the war. In the view of the government, effective representations on these bodies should neither 'be restricted to the largest states nor necessarily extended to all states. Representation should be determined on a functional basis which will admit to full membership those countries, large or small, which have the greatest contribution to make to the particular object in question. In the -world there are over sixty sovereign states. If they all have a nominally equal voice in international decisions, no effective decisions are likely to be taken. Some compromise must be found between 'the theoretical equality of states and the practical necessity of limiting representation on international bodies to a workable number. That compromise can be discovered, especially in economic matters, by the adoption of the functional principle of representation. That principle, in turn, is likely to find many new expressions in the gigantic task of liberation, restoration and reconstruction.
I shall now make a statement on the policy of the government with respect to refugees from Europe. Only the most callous could contemplate with indifference the situation of most of those unfortunates who, since Hitler's assumption of power, have been driven from their homes. Among them are to be found members of nearly every nationality and creed under the sun. They have been scattered far and wide. Most of them, however, including those whose sufferings are greatest, are still contained within the ring of territories held by the axis armies. For them, except perhaps for a tiny number who

Sup-ply-External Affairs-War Situation
may by subterfuge or stealth cross the axis-held frontiers to neighbouring neutral countries, the only escape from persecution lies in the victory of the armies of the united nations.
Inside German dominated Europe terrible things are happening, but the lash has fallen on the backs of the Jews more heavily than on any other group or race. Last December, the allied governments in London, in conjunction with the United Kingdom and the United States, issued a declaration denouncing the ruthless German policy of extermination of the Jewish people under their control and promising retribution. The government of Canada was glad immediately to associate itself with this declaration. There is, unfortunately, abundant evidence that there has been no change during the last six months. Indeed, in eastern Europe especially, the signs are that the treatment of the Jews has grown even more pitiless, and Jews from the western European territories under German control have been moved eastwards to share the fate of those from central and eastern Europe.
There is nothing that the allied governments can do to save these hapless people except to win the war as quickly and as completely as possible. They cannot be removed from axis territory. Efforts to aid them, even if aid was feasible, would prolong their agony if these efforts were to prolong the war. It was agreed, at the recent Bermuda conference between officials of the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, that no negotiations could be undertaken with Hitler, since his entire record has left no doubt that he would only agree to such solutions as would be of direct aid to the axis war aims. It was also agreed that nothing could be recommended that would interfere or delay the war effort of the united nations.
This Bermuda conference, however, has made a number of recommendations for the purpose of assisting those refugees who have already managed to penetrate through the axis ring to neutral countries. While victory alone can reach the central core of the refugee problem, it is not by any means beyond the power of the united nations to aid those who have escaped but have not yet found a safe asylum until peace is restored. I cannot give the house details either of the number of refugees in various neutral and allied territories or of the proposals-now accepted by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom -which were recommended by the Bermuda
conference. The delegations agreed that the details of their deliberations must be regarded as confidential so long as a knowledge of their recommendations would be of aid or comfort to our enemies or might adversely affect the refugees whom all are trying to aid. The universal problem of shipping was also recognized at the conference as of the utmost urgency and it was agreed there that any plan that looked to the diverting of allied shipping from the war effort, to remove or care for refugees, would present considerations of a military character which would disclose almost insuperable difficulties.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Were we represented at Bermuda?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We were not invited to be present at the conference. It was a conference between the United States and the United Kingdom with regard to which we had received no prior information other than that the two countries were seeking to arrange a conference at some place to be subsequently chosen, Bermuda became the chosen locality.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Have we been asked to accept the recommendations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not as yet. I shall have a word to say about that in a moment.


Major James William Coldwell: Have they been forwarded to us?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall refer to that in just a moment. Refugees who have reached Switzerland and Sweden cannot be moved to other destinations, as there is no means of transporting them. Refugees who have -escaped into Spain, Portugal, the middle east, and Africa, but have not yet found a safe resting place, can, if shipping is available, be moved to places where they can remain until peace is restored. This group includes many thousands of many races: Poles and Frenchmen, Czechs, Greeks and Yugoslavs, as well as Jews.
All that I can say about the decisions at Bermuda is to quote as follows from' the statement issued after the conference:
The conference was able to recommend measures both for removing refugees from neutral countries and, in those cases, where such removal was not possible, for giving assurances of international cooperation in the future of the refugee problem so far as it affected them.
It also recommended a number of temporary refugee havens to which refugees could be transported and maintained if and when shipping should become available. At least one such movement has been effected.
4560	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-War Situation
The Bermuda conference also made certain recommendations of a more general character. The refugee problem is essentially an internaticAial one, which can only be solved by cooperative effort. The conference recommended that the inter-governmental committee on refugees, which was established at the Evian meeting of 1938, should be reconstituted with increased authority, larger membership and greater financial resources. The Canadian government will be glad to play its part in giving effect to this recommendation. The conference also recommended, in order to allay the anxiety especially of neutral European countries, that the united nations should in a declaration provide for the repatriation of refugees to their own lands at the end of the war. The conference adopted other proposals designed to. make it easier for neutral countries to maintain the refugees in their territories whose removal could not be arranged. The Canadian government has not yet been asked to assist in giving effect to the proposals framed at Bermuda, but it will be glad to play its full part as soon as these proposals are presented to the united nations. This would include participation in the revised and strengthened inter-governmental committee, and also the reception in Canada until peace is restored of a number of refugees in addition to those already within the country.
I cannot state how many additional refugees Canada will be prepared to receive. This depends on many factors not within the control of the Canadian government. The dispersion of refugees now in neutral European countries, and the reception of those who may hereafter escape from axis territories, must be conducted under international auspices, with consideration given to the possibilities of transport, of repatriation at the end of the war, of uniting families and of useful employment in the war industries. Considerations of security must be carefully weighed in individual cases. A declaration such as the government has been urged to make, that Canada would receive all refugees from axis territory who could reach her shores, would be an invitation to the German government to distribute in this manner their spies and secret agents.
There is outstanding an offer of the Canadian government made last autumn to receive for the duration of the war up to 1.000 Jewish children then in unoccupied France and separated from their parents. The care and maintenance of these children was guaranteed through the Canadian Jewish congress under conditions generally similar to those applied
[Mr. Mackenzie King.)
to children evacuated from the British isles in 1940 under the government scheme. Before effect could be given to this offer, the Germans occupied the whole of France. The offer, however, is still valid. If arrangements can be made through neutral countries or the intergovernmental committee for the departure of *these children from France, we shall gladly accord them admission to Canada.
We already have in Canada a. very considerable refugee population. Many of those here have been admitted' for permanent residence in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration Act and regulations. Others have been granted asylum for the duration of the war only, and it is to this latter group *that I wish now to refer for a moment. There are doubtless among them many who would be glad to make their permanent homes in Canada, including some who have come from the British isles and some from countries of continental Europe. While the government can give no general undertaking that all who wish to stay will be granted the right to reside permanently in Canada, individual applications for permission to remain in this country after the war will be given full and sympathetic consideration.
It is hard to say how many refugees from Europe have been admitted to Canada since Hitler's rise to power. In our immigration statistics there is no category of entrants who are recorded as refugees. My impression is that those who criticize what has been done, and accuse the government of inertia and inhumanity, are often not fully cognizant of the facts. In the years 1933-42, nine thousand persons were admitted as immigrants to Canada by special orders in council, and most of them were European refugees. In addition, shortly before the war, 300 families and a substantial number of single men from the Sudeten area were admitted for agricultural settlement in western Canada, and hundreds of other agricultural refugees from central Europe were also admitted during that period. The total immigration from Europe, between April 1, 1933, and March 31. 1942, was 39,000, the bulk of whom were refugees. All these entered Canada for permanent residence.
I cannot even give an approximate figure of those admitted temporarily, as the records do not exist. All I can say is that these amount to several thousands, not including nearly 8.000 women and children who have been evacuated from the British isles since the spring of 1940. We have released also, under temporary status in Canada, about 900 persons of German and Austrian citizenship, who

Supply-External Affairs-War Situation
were transferred to Canada in July 1940 by the United Kingdom government. In addition we have received several hundred Polish and Czech technicians to work in our war industries. Quite apart from all these groups I should mention the many thousand prisoners of war who have been transferred to Canada for safe custody; while they are in no way refugees they constitute nevertheless a drain on our supplies and resources and their presence here has made it easier for refugees to be accommodated in African and Middle East territories under allied control.
We have not, of course, done all that we could have done and perhaps we have not done all that we should have done. Our record, however, is better than it is frequently made out to be and I think that it will stand comparison with the records of other parts of the British commonwealth and of the United States.
Since the outbreak of war Canada's diplomatic representation has been greatly extended. In September, 1939, Canada had, in addition to the long-established office of the High Commissioner in London, legations in the United States, France, Japan, and in Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as the office of the permanent delegate to the League of Nations. Since that time the legations in Paris, Tokyo, Brussels and the Hague and the office in Geneva have been closed. But in the interval, fourteen new offices abroad have been established. Of these, five represent the appointment of high commissioners within the British commonwealth, to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and Newfoundland. Five are of new legations, to U.S.S.R. and China, and in South America to Brazil, Argentine and Chile. In addition, one minister has been accredited to seven of the allied governments established during the war in London: Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece and Czechoslovakia. All of the countries I have mentioned are represented in Ottawa by ministers, high commissioners or accredited representatives as the case may be.
Consular officers of Canada are serving in Greenland, and in St. Pierre and Miquelon. Most recently, with the appointment of a consul-general to New York, the first separate consular establishment in the United States has been opened.
The supervisory commission of the League of Nations still meets, though not at Geneva, and there is a Canadian representative on this continuing body. An important part of the league, the International Labour Organization, has, since 1940, had its headquarters at Montreal.
All of these formal relationships speak of the developing importance of Canada in the world community. The fortunes of war-or perhaps something more than the fortunes- have brought to Canada valiant men and women of many nations: sovereigns, prime ministers, foreign ministers and officers of state; chiefs of staff and ranking officers of armies, navies and air forces of many lands.
The stature of nationhood which Canada has reached-I mean the position of Canada as a world power-has been reached, not on material grounds alone, though Canada's contributions to mutual aid have been impressive by any standard. Neither does it owe its emergence to political considerations. It has arisen, I believe, from our recognition of the needs of humanity. Our conception of nationhood rejects, as it must always reject, any attachment to ideas which are non-democratic, or to usages which would constitute the negation of free institutions and the untrammelled expression of the free souls of free men. It is something which speaks not simply for to-day, or next month, or the year after next, but for all the future of Canada.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity that has been afforded the House of Commons" during the present session to discuss Canada's foreign policy, and I think that is to be regretted. Questions of foreign policy are daily becoming of greater importance to Canada. They are probably the most vital questions this house can face in any of its sessions. Therefore I deprecate greatly the practice of the government in postponing each session the discussion of foreign policy, and then setting aside a very short time for that purpose.
It has always seemed to me that it would be very helpful if we were to have set up in this house a committee to be known as a foreign affairs committee, or one at any rate which would deal with questions of foreign affairs. For that matter there might also be a similar committee set up in the senate. I am confident that if this step were taken it would mean that the government of the day would get help in settling problems having to do with foreign affairs. It would also mean that members of both the Senate and the House of Commons would be far better informed on foreign questions, and it would help the Canadian people to get a better grasp of the. different problems.
At the present time Canadians are given very little leadership by this parliament in connection with foreign affairs and yet the foreign policy of any country must be based upon the beliefs and wishes of its people.
Supply-External Affairs

Before the war Canada's foreign policy might be summed up as, first of all, friendliness to all nations. With that policy no one can quarrel, although at times it was carried to an absurd length-for example with Germany and with Japan. Hon. members who were in the last House of Commons, the last parliament, will remember how this government allowed scrap iron to be shipped out to Japan, even when it was obvious to everyone that it was only a matter of time before Japan would be at war with the British commonwealth and with the United States. Friendliness in foreign affairs can very easily go so far as to become a policy of hiding your head in the sand.
Then, the second branch of Canada's foreign policy before the war was that we had no commitments to anyone-either to Great Britain, to any of the other members of the commonwealth, to the United States or any other nation. Time and again both in the house and on the hustings members of the government stated that policy-that Canada had no commitments. And they put it in this way, that Canada could be informed by Great Britain of what was going on, but she could not be consulted, the implication being that if she were consulted she would be under some obligation, and Canada felt that she should be under no obligation to Great Britain or to anyone else.
Now, that was the announced policy. In actual fact it was not the policy. One has only to refer to the report of the imperial conference held in London in 1937 to learn that at that time and at that conference the main topics of discussion were foreign affairs and defence. Quite extensive plans were made for the empire, for the commonwealth, to have a common policy in foreign affairs, and also for the defence of the commonwealth as a unit. But the government did not see fit to explain that to the Canadian people. And I do suggest for the future-unfortunately it is too late now to do anything about the past -it would have been better if the government had come right out in the open and said, "The nations of the British commonwealth propose to stand together, war or no war. War or no war we stand together as a British family; and let the rest of the world take notice accordingly." That is the only fair way to treat the Canadian people. Hearing this talk of a no-commitment policy, and not knowing where they stood, there was utter confusion from one end of Canada to the other with regard to Canada's foreign policy. I repeat it would have been far better for the Canadian people if they had been told by their government that the British family intended to stand together as one, and that Canada was with the rest of the family.

Perhaps the most humiliating situation in which Canada was placed as a result of this no-commitment policy was on July 1, 1938, Canada's birthday, when those of us who were in the last parliament had to sit in the house and hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) say that he was unwilling to have Great Britain set up schools in Canada for the training of her airmen, because that would be the equivalent of setting up a foreign military station in this land.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take exception at once to what my hon. friend has said. If he makes any reference he should make clear that the whole point in connection with the schools being established in this country was that the government had no objection whatsoever to the schools being established, so long as their administration was to be under the responsibility of a Canadian minister.


Howard Charles Green: I have the reference from Hansard before me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read them.


Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately what I have said is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not correct. I have made a statement, and I challenge the hon. member to refute it. The position has been perfectly clear at all times.


Howard Charles Green: And I may say this, that as an old soldier of Canada I hung my head in shame at the words of the Prime Minister on that, occasion, and the manner in which they were said.


The CHAIRMAN:: The Prime Minister has denied the statement attributed to him, and has asked for the exact statement.


Howard Charles Green: I would refer the committee to page 4527 of Hansard for July 1, 1938, where the Prime Minister is reported in this way:
May I say a word with respect to the idea of having the imperial air force set up flying schools in Canada to train their pilots; in short, a military station put down in Canada, owned, maintained and operated by the imperial government for imperial purposes. I must say that long ago Canadian governments finally settled the constitutional principle that in Canadian territory there could be no military establishments unless they were owned, maintained and controlled by the Canadian government responsible to the Canadian parliament and people.
The Prime Minister goes on to say:
Such domestic ownership, maintenance and control of all military stations and personnel is one of the really indispensable hall marks of national sovereign self-government and an indispensable basis for friendly and effective

Supply-External Affairs
cooperation between the governments of Canada and those of other parts of the British commonwealth of nations, including the government of the United Kingdom.
At page 4529 of Hansard we find this:
Mr. Bennett:	This is not a military force
but a training force.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I want the house and the country to understand clearly what is being discussed. My reference was with regard to the idea of having the imperial air force set up a flying school somewhere in Canada to train their flying pilots. In short, a military station to be put down in Canada, owned, maintained and operated by the imperial government for imperial purposes.
Mr. Bennett: Not for imperial purposes.
Mr. Mackenzie King: It is for imperial purposes. Is it for Canadian purposes?
Mr. Bennett: Yes, very much so.
I will leave hon. members to draw their own conclusions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend, were he willing to make the record complete, should have drawn attention to what I said several times, in addition to the particular excerpts he has quoted, and which served to make our position very clear.


Howard Charles Green: If the Prime Minister
wishes to explain his words he will have an opportunity to do so.
The third branch of Canada's foreign policy before the war was that there was great emphasis placed at all times upon our independence and our equality of status. It was claimed that Canada was a nation by reason of the imperial conference of 1926 and of the Balfour declaration and the statute of Westminster which followed. Actually Canada became a nation because of the fighting of the Canadian corps in the last war. Those were the three branches of Canada's foreign policy before the war- friendliness, no commitments, and emphasis on equality of status.
Now after four years of war presumably Canada still has a policy of friendliness, but I believe the Canadian government no longer follows the policy of no commitments. We have commitments in every direction, and quite properly so. The stage of no commitments has long since passed. But the Canadian government has not yet given up the third branch of its foreign policy, which, as I have said, is to place great stress on equality of status. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), on March 19 of this year, outlined Canada's foreign policy, and by the way be did it then much more fully than
he has done to-day. He read the Balfour declaration and ended his speech with these words:
In all our relations with other parts of the empire and with other countries, so far as the present administration is concerned, we intend to stand on the ground of a status of our own equal to that of each and all of the self-governing communities-the dominions and the United Kingdom included.
No one either inside of Canada or outside of Canada is questioning Canada's equality of status or Canada's independence, and the government in making a declaration of policy of this type is setting up a straw man simply to knock him down. In these days, in the fourth year of the war and approaching the fifth year, Canada needs something far more up to date and far more realistic in the line of foreign policy. We are living in a different world from that of 1939. There have been great developments as a result of the war. I need not list them, but there have been developments, for instance, in the way of raising men for the armed forces, in the production of manufactured goods, in the pror duction of food, and other developments so great -that the Prime Minister the other day, on July 1, another of Canada's birthdays, boasted in this fashion, as found at page 4226 of Hansard:
In the course of the present war, we have seen Canada emerge from nationhood into a position generally recognized as that of a world power.
Canada a world power! Those are striking words and thought-provoking words for every man and woman in- Canada, and they can be made a fact. But they will never be made a fact with a Canadian foreign policy that emphasizes only friendliness for all and equality of status with the other British nations. That does not go far enough. Something more is required if Canada is to be a world power. A foreign policy is required that will give the Canadian people a vision of their nation taking a stand on world questions as they arise, and not simply waiting outside the door for some of the larger nations to hand out a decision. Canada herself must take a stand on world questions as they arise. Secondly, a vision of Canada boldly asking for the sort of world that Canadians believe in as individuals. Thirdly, Canada must be willing to assume her fair share of responsibilities, of whatever burdens there may be entailed in order that a better world may be developed after this war.
If the Canadian people catch this vision of Canada as a world power taking the lead in making a better world, they will so build this nation and develop Canada-and after
Supply'-External Affairs

all it is the people who develop a nation, not the government-that she will become such a world power.
The foreign policy announced by the Prime Minister is too much wrapped up in a blanket of words, which is one of the great failings of the Prime Minister in practically all his announcements, and it is qualified by too many provisos. Canadians must have a foreign policy that is straightforward and easily understood by all. To-day I make bold to suggest certain broad principles for a Canadian foreign policy and to ask the government to give them the most serious consideration.
The first principle I enunciate is this, that the Canadian government should make it known to the Canadian people that this nation has finished forever with a policy of no commitments, with a policy, in other words, of isolation. It must be clear now to the most stupid person in the civilized world that no nation can stand alone. Let Canada be prepared' to stand with all the other nations who are seeking 'to build a better world.
The second principle is that Canada will accept her full share of responsibility for maintaining law and order beyond her own boundaries. That may mean that Canada must provide an air force for the post-war period, that she must provide troops, that she must provide naval forces for the maintenance of law and order beyondi the 'boundaries of Canada. We must be prepared to take our share in maintaining order after the war. The United States is moving along this line. I was very much impressed by what is known as the Fulbright resolution, a resolution recently passed unanimously by the foreign affairs committee of the House of Representatives favouring-
-the creation of appropriate international machinery with power adequate to establish and maintain a just and lasting peace among the nations of the world and favouring participation by the United States therein.
That is a notable declaration by the United States House of Representatives, and a principle of that type could very well be adopted and enunciated by the Canadian parliament.
The third principle is this, that Canada intends to stay in the British family of nations, that Canada intends to develop within the British commonwealth. That will mean Canada standing as a world power at the side of Great Britain, perhaps a power with a larger population eventually than Great Britain; in my opinion, if this nation is given proper leadership, that will become the case in course of time. And it should be made clear that Canada believes that the

British family of nations should speak with one voice in foreign affairs. That is what the United States and the other nations of the world expect; -that is what the Canadian people want-make no mistake about it-and in the long run Canada's foreign policy will be what the man on the street wants it to be.
In recent years Canada has placed too much emphasis on status. It is like a man throwing out his chest and showing off what a big fellow he is. That is very clearly brought out in a pamphlet entitled "The British Commonwealth at War", by William Yandell Elliott and H. Duncan Hall, and published this year. At page 14 I read this:
The period in which the emphasis was laid by the British dominions upon status, rather than upon their common interests and their obligations as members of the British commonwealth, lasted for little more than fifteen years; it ended roughly in 1935, when the world began to be once more manifestly unsafe for small powers. The dominions which placed the most emphasis upon status were Canada, the most secure of all the dominions, and Eire and South Africa which, because some of their population had recently been at war with Britain, were under a deep psychological necessity to assert their independence. Australia and New Zealand, the most exposed to danger from war, the most British in the composition of their populations, the most free from memories of past friction with Britain, placed far less emphasis upon status and far more upon the sharing of mutual obligations with the other members of the commonwealth and the making of contributions to the common defence.
In the League of Nations we had1 the British commonwealth speaking with different voices. Other nations have never understood that, and they never will in the days that are to come. The fact of Canada declining to be consulted, Canada holding back, has resulted in Great Britain, which had to speak for herself, being taken in effect as speaking for the British commonwealth. From the statements of Mr. Eden, the British Foreign Secretary, in Washington when he was there this spring, it is clear that Great Britain does not like that; that she would like to have the commonwealth speaking as a unit. We find this press quotation in the papers of March 27 of this year from Washington, dealing with Mr. Eden's visit:
Here in Washington the Foreign Secretary has made no secret of his desire for further collaboration between the commonwealth on foreign policy or any other matter. He has made it clear that Britain claims no exclusive representation for the empire on the various combined organizations now set up and in the process of formation-and in fact would be willing to step down in turn to make room for the dominions to represent the commonwealth.

Supply-External Affairs
There is danger of a Big Four seUup in international affairs, with Canada one of the smaller nations waiting around outside. The Prime Minister this very morning has told us about the leading boards, and he has said that with the exception of one, on which our Minister of Munitions and Supply is a representative, all of them are United Kingdom-United States boards. Just the other day, on June 11, announcement was made that a relief agency had been formed of the united nations. Canada is vitally concerned with that relief agency because she will have to supply a large portion of the food and other materials. Yet we find in another press dispatch from Washington, dated June 10:
The real governing board, however, will be the central committee consisting of representatives of the big four, Britain, the United States, Russia and China.
Although the draft agreement does not suggest Canada for membership on the central committee, despite the fact that Canada, next to the United States, will provide more relief food than any other country, there is one position of major importance that would seem to be ideally suited to Canada's unique position. That is the chairmanship of the supplies committee.
Andi then it goes on:
It may develop that Canada will be selected at the Washington conference for this role, having been left off the central committee.
If Canada insists on taking her part in the councils of the nations as a wholly autonomous, independent unit of the British commonwealth, showing that the commonwealth has no common foreign policy, she can expect nothing but to end up in the position in which she has ended up on so many of these committees. She can expect at best a minor and an indirect voice in such councils. The tragic feature of that policy is that the result will be that Canada will develop a small nation complex and will never be anything but a small state.
I suggest to hon. members that it would be far better for Canada to develop within the British commonwealth, thereby greatly strengthening it, thereby giving the commonwealth a far stronger voice in world affairs, and in fact thereby making the commonwealth the basis of a broader world order. The British commonwealth needs Canada. It needs Canada just as much as Canada needs the other nations of the commonwealth. Canada is the keystone of the British empire. We are an Atlantic power, a Pacific power, an American power, and now, with the development of aeroplanes, we are an Arctic power. I would impress upon the Prime Minister that Canada is now the keystone of the British empire and that we should plan with that thought in mind.
Take for example the British commonwealth air training plan. What a wonderful thing that has been. It shows what can be done when the nations of the British commonwealth make up their minds to really work together. We can carry out plans of that type with regard to our air development in the post-war days. I do not intend to go any further into that, because the subject will be dealt with by my colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I am sure that what our lads who are serving in every part of the globe would insist upon, if they could be here, would be that Canada shall develop as a great nation within the British commonwealth. After all, they are the Canadians who are really making Canada a world power-not those of us who are here at home.
The fourth principle of Canada's foreign policy should be that the British commonwealth and the United States are indispensable to one another and must be in alliance for all time. Let us face that fact and tell the rest of the world it is what we believe. There has been no war between those two groups of British peoples for over 128 years. That is a significant fact; it shows that our interests are parallel; had it not been so there would have been war between the peoples long since.
This whole question of the relationship between the British commonwealth and the United States is very clearly expressed in a book by Walter Lippmann, which has been published this last month, entitled " U. S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic." It is a small book, which it would repay any hon. member to read, because it applies not only to United States foreign policy, but also to Canadian foreign policy. At page 127 Mr. Lippmann says:
Is it not undeniable that American commitments in the Atlantic and the Pacific dictate the need for an alliance with the British commonwealth of nations and with the empire? ... It is better to proclaim frankly that the alliance is necessary, and then to demonstrate the need for it to the common sense of the British, the Canadian, and the American people.
I suggest to hon. members that that is good advice as well for Canadians.
The fifth principle is this, that Canada, as an American nation and a nation which has always been friendly with all other nations of this hemisphere, should be an active member of the Pan-American Union, it being understood of course that we are not to be taken thereby as weakening our connection with the British commonwealth of nations. Just a few days ago, on June 28, the Prime Minister tabled an inter-American radio agreement,
Supply-External Affairs

and it is strange to find that it was an agreement signed in Chile on January 26, 1940, over three years ago. Canada was not present at the negotiations and is not really a party to the agreement, but Canada adhered to the agreement on the 8th of May, 1943. This shows the ridiculous position in which we are placed in our dealings with other nations of this hemisphere. I repeat that we should become an active member of the Pan-American Union.
The sixth and final .principle is this, that Canada should promote the closest cooperation with Russia, China, and the other united nations, and that Canada hopes eventually to see established a world organization which will include all nations. I would point out Canada's position with regard to Russia. The development of the aeroplane has made Russia our neighbour over the north pole; we have had Russian aviators flying here by that route; we are also close neighbours by way of Alaska; and we must cooperate with that great nation. China will be a great field for trade after the war and that is of particular interest to those Canadians who live on the Pacific slope, and I repeat that Canada should promote the closest cooperation with her.
These are the six principles I place before the Prime Minister and the house for consideration. There may be others that are equally important, and I hope that members will bring forward suggestions for Canada's foreign policy. These principles are clear; I believe they are sound; and they are based on what is Canada's own interest. In the last analysis that must be the basis for the foreign policy of any nation-whether it is in the interests of the people of that nation.
In conclusion, for Canada this is a turning point. We are at a turning point in the history of this country. Either we go on from here and become a real world power, or we develop a small-nation complex; and now is the time to place before the Canadian people a vision of what this wonderful nation of ours can be.


Major James William Coldwell: This is the first opportunity this session which the house has had of discussing external affairs. I was hoping that opportunities might have been found to enable us to go into the question of external affairs before reaching this stage of our proceedings. On March 19, as reported at page 1398 of Hansard, I said to the Prime Minister:
I think it would be of value if at an early day the Prime Minister would call an item in his estimates so that there might be a discussion of Canada's external affairs. It would enable us to arrive at a clearer understanding of some of the things, which, as he suggests, may becloud the issue.
The report goes on:
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I am anxious that
the house shall get on with its business as rapidly as possible. Before we take up any new subject for discussion we should conclude with the matters in hand.
Mr. Coldwell: I agree. I meant not to leave it until the dying days of the session.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I shall undertake with pleasure to see that matters of foreign policy are discussed before that time.
That was during the budget debate. Since then other departments have gone into supply and have had some of their estimates discussed, but external affairs has been left until the dying days of the session, when the house is tired and when we are faced with a great deal of unfinished business. To my mind this is one of the most important debates in the course of the session. Throughout the years we have not had that consideration of external affairs that should have been given by this parliament, and much of what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said this morning, a great deal of his criticism, is due to the fact that this house has not given sufficient attention to questions of external policy and external affairs.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? Both he and the hon. member who spoke before him suggested that this matter should be dealt with by means of a committee. Is it not a fact that there is a standing committee that deals with international relations? It has been in existence ever since confederation, I suppose, but the government has not allowed it to meet for the last seven years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take exception to my hon. friend's statement. He says that the government has not allowed it to meet.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not correct. There has been no request for the committee to meet. Had there been such a request the government would have acceded to it, whether coming from my hon. friend or from any other hon. member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The committee can be set up only on motion of the government. Because there is no request, that does not relieve the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a standing committee of the house, and any hon. member may ask that it be called. My hon. friends know that and they have not asked that it be done. But to say that the government has prohibited it is completely wrong.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not use the word prohibit; I said, did not allow. I have tried to bring matters before other committees and I know what success I have had.

Supply-External Affairs


Mr. COLD WELL:: I believe I have the floor. This is the 107th day of the session. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that there is a committee and that any hon. member may request that it be called; but, as he well knows, members of the house usually wait for some move from the government or from the government side of the house to encourage the calling of such a committee. However, I am not disputing the fact that a member of this house could have asked for the setting up of that committee. But even that does not excuse the Prime Minister, as Minister for External Affairs, for leaving this important matter until the 107th day of this session. I know that the Prime Minister is busy. I know that he has many weighty affairs to which he must given his attention, and I was therefore surprised, when the assistants to the various ministers were appointed, that no assistant was appointed to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs. It seemed to me that if there was one place where assistance was necessary it was in that particular department, and I had hoped that some additional attention would be given to external affairs by the appointment of an assistant.
There are a good many things I desire to say in connection with this debate, but perhaps, in order to put myself in the frame of mind in which I can discuss these matters with rather more careful consideration, and since I want to deal with something which is a little unpleasant, I may observe by way of preface that I have always refrained from making personal attacks. I think every member of the house will give me credit for that. It is against my nature and my way of doing things to make personal attacks. On May 14 I had occasion to refer to one of our ministers, the minister at Washington, Mr. McCarthy, and I made certain criticisms to which I shall allude in a moment. On May 17 the Prime Minister rose in the house and gave me something of a castigation for, to use his own words, "making innuendoes of a character unworthy" of myself, and making, as he said, all kinds of irresponsible representations regarding the minister at Washington. Now the only irresponsible statement made in that regard was a statement by the Prime Minister when he said:
I am prepared to support all the representations made by Mr. McCarthy in the statement he has presented here.
Shortly after that statement, within a week of raising the matter in the house, I was in Washington. Mr. McCarthy sent me an invitation to visit him. I visited him, and on that
occasion we discussed the statement which was placed before the house by the Prime Minister. Here is the statement:
Questions asked 'by Mr. Coldwell may be summarized as follows:
I have no quarrel with the summary. My question was:
(1)	I want to ask him what part in this agreement and in the general agreement we are discussing under this bill the Department of External Affairs played. What part did it play in relation to this country?
Answer: So far as the minister in charge of this legation is concerned, the answer to this question is that he played no part whatever, and he goes further and says that he has never discussed with any member of the United States administration or officer thereof.
Mr. McCarthy told me that that statement was absolutely correct, and I took his word. I said to Mr. McCarthy at the time: If agreements of this sort, involving Canada and the United States, are not matters for discussion by our legation at Washington, what is the legation there for? Of course, Mr. McCarthy told me that I must ask the Prime Minister that question, and I do ask him now: What function does our legation perform if it does not deal with matters of the description we have been discussing in this house? Then I quote again:
(2)	Mr. Coldwell says: I find it very difficult to believe that the minister at Washington had nothing to do with negotiations in regard to these matters involving Canada and the United States.
Answer: No matter how difficult Mr. Cold-well finds it to believe, the fact is that the minister had nothing whatever to do with these negotiations, and played no part in them.
(3)	Mr. Coldwell says: He (Mr. McCarthy) is still a director and vice-president of the parent company, the Aluminum Company of the United States.
Answer: Mr. McCarthy is not now nor has he ever been a director or vice-president or officer of the Aluminum Company of America.
I did not say that he ever was vice-president or director of the Aluminum Company of America; I said that he was vice-president and director of the parent company, which unfortunately I miscalled the Aluminum Company of the United States. When I was in Washington I drew that to Mr. McCarthy's attention and I asked him this question: Are you not vice-president and director of the parent company, Aluminium Limited?-I miscalled it the Aluminum Company of the United States. Mr. McCarthy's reply to me was: Yes, I am and I intend to remain so; the Prime Minister knew of my directorates when I was appointed minister at Washington. I characterized the original statement at the time as a deliberate concealment of the truth.


[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Whether Mr. McCarthy personally was responsible for that or not, I do not know, but I suggested that there was a deliberate concealment of the truth. I could not conceive of a gentleman who has had the long experience in corporation law which our minister at Washington has had, being so careless, both in this case and in the case I am going to mention, in the use of the English language as to place the matter in the manner in which it was placed.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must take exception at once to the statement by my hon. friend that there has been a deliberate concealment of the truth. First of all, I want him to state whether he makes that charge in reference to myself, because if he does I wish to say that I refute it absolutely. There has been no concealment of the truth in any particular so far as I am concerned. I believe Mr. McCarthy is just as honourable a man as my hon. friend or myself, and I am quite positive that he would not be guilty at any time of a deliberate concealment of the truth. My hon. friend has said that he made a mistake in referring to some other corporation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Which did not exist.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whether it existed or not.


Major James William Coldwell: I said the parent
company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. McCarthy's reference was to the statement which my hon. friend made.


Major James William Coldwell: I accept the Prime Minister's word that there was no deliberate concealment of the truth. I am prepared to say that Mr. McCarthy told me that he did not intend that there should be a deliberate concealment of the truth. I said that I had characterized it as such when I was speaking in this house on a previous occasion, and I leave it to hon. gentlemen to say whether in the light of the circumstances what I said then was justified or not. I went on to say:
As a matter of fact Mr. McCarthy has been for thirty years legal consultant of the Aluminum Company of Canada.
Answer: That would be a correct statement beginning with the year 1907, but incorrect as to the last probably eight or ten years, when he was superseded by Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., of Montreal, who has been elected a director of Aluminum Company of Canada in Mr. McCarthy's place.
In answer to an interjection of mine the Prime Minister indicated that he too thought that this occurred eight or ten years ago,

when as a matter of fact Mr. McCarthy resigned as counsel in 1937, his place being taken by Mr. Geoffrion. But he resigned in January of this year as vice-president and director of the wholly owned subsidiary of Aluminium Limited, known in Canada as the Aluminum Company of Canada. As Mr. McCarthy told me, it was not until then that Mr. Geoffrion was appointed a director of the company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. gentleman say that the Canadian company is a wholly owned subsidiary?


Major James William Coldwell: The Aluminum Company of Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary or a company belonging wholly to Aluminium Limited of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the company whose shares are listed on the stock exchange.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I am not going into this very fully.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend will excuse me. I think he will agree that the directors of these companies are all listed and published and were so listed at the time the statements were made in the house. There was no effort made to conceal them.


Major James William Coldwell: The statement is most misleading. If you read the statement which came from Mr. McCarthy you will see that it clearly indicates, as the Prime Minister thought it did, and as I did the day the matter was introduced into the house, that Mr. Geoffrion had been counsel and director of this company since 1937. That is the way I read this statement, and the Prime Minister evidently thought the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a directory of directors with which my hon. friend is familiar, and he will see Mr. McCarthy's connection as director set forth in that directory. It is and always was a matter of public knowledge. Mr. McCarthy would not, nor would anyone else, wish to conceal that fact.


Major James William Coldwell: The impression given by that answer was that he had not been since 1937.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Eight or
ten years.


Major James William Coldwell: That would be 1937.
This is a rather tangled skein to follow. I am not going to comment further except to say that the impression went abroad from this house that I was incorrect in the state-

Supply-External Affairs
ment that I made on that occasion. It was even said in western Canada, in my own conr stituency, when it was known that I had gone down to Washington, that I had been called there to apologize to Mr. McCarthy. It was rumoured around the district. I am simply going to say I have no apologies whatsoever to offer for my statements except for the slip in naming the company. On the other hand statements placed before the house by the Prime Minister, whether deliberate or not, were misleading, and misled me to the extent that I rose in this house on that occasion and expressed surprise, which I would not have otherwise done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend, during his conversation with Mr. McCarthy at Washington, and after that conversation, was he still of the opinion that there had been a deliberate intention on Mr. McCarthy's part to mislead in any aspect of this matter?


Major James William Coldwell: I am always prepared
to accept the word of a gentleman when it is given to me, but even when I do that, there sometimes remains a lingering doubt in my mind, and that lingering doubt remained because of the language that was used in connection with these answers.
I now leave that subject to come back to the Department of External Affairs. I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning. I regret that Canada has not received more recognition than she has received in the councils of the united nations in relation to some of the affairs in which we are vitally interested. This morning we had an example of it. The Prime Minister was speaking of the Bermuda conference. We received no invitation to attend that conference; and apparently, if I understood the Prime Minister aright, we have received no official report of that conference, although the Prime Minister this morning spoke at some length about recommendations. I Was tempted-although I did not wish to interrupt him-to ask him how he knew of all these recommendations if we have not yet received an official report of that conference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They did not do anything.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be true. I
am not going to enumerate the other conferences to which Canada has not been accorded the representation to which our part in the War entitles us.
72537-289J
I was glad to hear the expressions of sympathy for the refugees in connection with the refugee problem, but I believe we might have initiated some conferences or made some attempts to solve this problem in a way which I might term more Christian. I know that many of these people who are refugees are Jews. Of course, they are not all Jews; there are a number of Gentiles among them. I remember also that two thousand years ago it was a Gentile country, Egypt, that gave refuge to a Jewish child whom to-day we honour as the founder of the great religion which most of us profess. Therefore I say, Jew or Gentile-I wish the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, every time the Jews are mentioned, would not interrupt with the hatred of the Jews which seems to fill his heart and soul.


Mr. JAQUES:: Do you never make personal remarks?


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend keeps
muttering behind me, and sits two seats away.


Norman Jaques: You make plenty, too.


Major James William Coldwell: I cannot go on with
my speech-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Norman Jaques: You say plenty behind my back, too.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to see this
country, having regard to its interests, nevertheless do what it can to relieve the conditions of people who have suffered terror at the hands of Hitler. In saying that, may I also add that many of us have been filled with a good deal of misgiving at the trend of events in North Africa and elsewhere. We saw at the end of last year, after our men had made that splendid and successful attempt to invade North Africa, compromises made with people who throughout the last several years had been friendly with the nazi and fascist regimes, indeed had taken a prominent part in preventing the flight of the government of France to North Africa after the fall of France, and had cooperated loyally, if you can use that term in connection with them, with the nazi regime and with the government which was under its control. And even to-day people wonder if what was done in North Africa is a foretaste of what will be done in Europe, and if so to what extent our country has made or will make representations as one of the united nations against the kind of policy that was instituted in North Africa, may be instituted in Italy when we have invaded it, and may be instituted all across Europe when the nazis are destroyed.
Supply-External Affairs

I regard this war, particularly since the fall of France and the retreat from Dunkirk, not as an ordinary war, a war for territory-no; a war for commerce-no; a war for imperial power-no; but, if I may use the term strictly in its dictionary sense, as a part of a great revolutionary struggle that has been going on all over the world for some time, and which can only culminate in the setting up all over the world of democratic governments that are strictly responsible to and controlled by the people of the various countries of the world. Because I believe that, I wonder why it is that favour has been shown to persons who have not followed out policies in accord with the general trend of events.
We know, for example, it is said of General de Gaulle that he is a difficult man to get along with. Well, we do know, of course, that after the fall of France de Gaulle was the only French general of prominence who allied himself, and those who followed him, with our side. We know also that de Gaulle has become the symbol of the underground movement of resistance in France, and the symbol of that democratic power which the people of suffering France hope will emerge when the united nations are victorious. Consequently one finds it very difficult indeed to follow what has been done in North Africa and elsewhere with any degree of optimism for the future.
I am certain that the peoples who are suffering in Europe are not suffering because they wish to reestablish the kind of Europe that was known before this great catastrophe came upon the world. Therefore it is alarming to many people to see the support accorded, particularly by our great neighbour to the south, to persons such as those to whom I have just alluded. Even to-day, while we are glad to welcome General Giraud to North America, we wonder why some time ago General de Gaulle was not accorded a similar spontaneous and hearty invitation or welcome to this part of the world.
This morning I was glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South say that he thought the time had come when we should, if an opportunity offers, unite ourselves with the Pan-American Union. I think that would be a forward step. I agree with him, and I think all parties an the house recognize that Canada as a free and self-governing nation ought to and must remain in the closest possible cooperation with the British commonwealth of nations. We all agree with that; we have never disagreed with it. But it seems to me that our unity with the Pan-American
[Mr. Coldwell-3
Union would not in any way diminish our association with the British commonwealth of nations.
I know that there are difficulties in the way. I know, for example that in 1927, I believe it was, the state department of the United States issued certain instructions to *the delegates from that country that they were to oppose the entry of Canada, because they did not want the influence of a European power. I think that that was due to an entire misapprehension regarding the status of Canada. And, in any event, since the statute of Westminster there should be no misunderstanding as to the status of this country.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sumbury):: Would the hon. member indicate just how the statute of Westminster alters Canada's status? Is it not declaratory of what was set forth in the Balfour declaration?


Thomas Miller Bell: I did not say it altered our status. I said there should be no misunderstanding of our status. I think the statute of Westminster very clearly set out Canada's position as a self-governing nation within the British commonwealth of nations, equal in all respects to all other members of that British commonwealth of nations. And while it may have made no alteration in our status, it none the less emphasized and, probably in some, quarters, clarified the situation, and removed any doubt as do what our status really was.


Mr. POULIOT:: Just the preamble, and it means nothing.


Major James William Coldwell: I have now the text of instructions from the Secretary of State of the United States to the United States delegation to the pan-American conference held in Havana in 1928. The state paper refers to the-
[DOT]-colonies, possessions or dominions, whose foreign relations are controlled by European states.
And it expresses a' fear that if they were present they would not be free to follow out a common policy, but rather would have to follow out the policies of European states. It ends with these words:
Should Canada be proposed as a member of the PanAmerican Union, you will be guided by the oral instructions given by the Secretary of State to the delegates at its meeting at the Department of State on December 28, 1927.
It has been said authoritatively that those instructions were as I indicated a few moments ago.

Supply-External Affairs
Mr. Chairman, there are several other matters I should like to diiscuss, but I see it is now one o'clock, and I shall therefore resume my seat.
Mr. JAQ.UES: May I make one remark?


Major James William Coldwell: I have not finished.


Norman Jaques: On a point of order, I wish to correct a statement attributed to me by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. The statement he made was that the founder of the Christian religion was a Jew. I have it on the authority of the present Dean of St. Paul's, who ought to know what he is talking about, I imagine, that there was not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins. That is all I said. I know that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is very fond of playing to the gallery, for the benefit of the financial press.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes that are left to me there are one or two matters with which I want to deal very briefly. There are so many topics that it is difficult to pick and choose between them in a discussion of external affairs. I do, however, wish to say that Canada should be considering very carefully future policy and our relations with the world at large in regard to that policy. We cannot live apart from other nations, and it seems to me that for a country like Canada the policy we should pursue is that of the greatest possible cooperation with countries with like aims and ideals to our own. There can be no security for a small nation apart from some form of collective security. We remain close to the British commonwealth of nations because to many of us this commonwealth of free self-governing nations is perhaps the promise of better things to come in the future of the world, when nations equal in status will be able to formulate policies in cooperation with one another for the establishment of international justice and the enforcement of international law and order, and in. such a community of nations Canada should play its proper part.
This morning I was discussing matters in connection with one of our legations. In my opinion Canada ought to be represented as widely as possible in the capitals of the countries with which we are in the closest contact.
I am glad that the government has adopted the policy of exchanging representatives with a good many nations. I should like to see that policy expanded. I know that there has been some discussion with the republic of Mexico. It seems to me that Mexico, as another north American nation, ought to be in contact with us in a regular and diplomatic manner.
Of those who represent us in such places I would like to say that the government should endeavour to establish within the Department of External Affairs a system of training and promotion of men most suitable to represent Canada abroad. I do not regard it as either wise or good that our representatives in foreign countries should have to be rich men. Of that kind of representation one is critical, and one should not be critical of a man representing Canada merely because he is rich. A qualification for the representation of Canada abroad ought not to be that a man has a large private income. Those of us who visited the legation in Washington the other day were quite well aware of the fact that it would be very difficult indeed for a civil servant on the salary and allowances we provide to keep up the almost palatial quarters that we have in the city of Washington. I am of the opinion that we should have modest quarters, where a man living on the salary and emoluments provided by the government of Canada would have sufficient to do what is expected of him as the representative of this nation abroad. I do think we should be represented in the capitals of countries with which we are in closest contact, both politically and commercially, and that of course applies particularly at the moment to the countries of South America.
There are other matters which I should like to discuss, but since my time has expired I do not propose to enter upon another topic which would require more than the few moments of discussion that I am able to give to it. Suffice it to say that I am firmly of the opinion that we in this'-house must take a much deeper interest in the international relationships of our country than we have done in the past. The events which led up to the great war were very largely events over which we had no control and with which we had no close contact, and step by step we found that a government whose policies we followed deserted principles of collective security to which we should have tried to adhere closely. Finally the world went up again in flames. It seems to me that it is the duty of representatives of the people in every parliament and every legislature in the world to consider
Supply-External Affairs

carefully the possibilities following the winning of this war, and that we should endeavour to lay the foundation of a new world order based on law and order and on peace preserved by the combined efforts of all the nations which agree to a system of collective security.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Chairman, with the closing remarks of the speaker who has immediately preceded me I think everyone in the house and in the country and perhaps in the world at large will be wholly in accord. It is so easy to speak about beautiful things that all people desire, but so difficult to make it clear how those beautiful things are to be achieved. It is easy enough to speak of collective security, for example, but when it comes to deciding with whom you are going to collect, and upon what basis you are going to collect, the problem is not nearly so simple. I surely agree, as I have already indicated, with the closing words of the previous speaker, but I am not sure that he and I would agree very much further, especially when the question arose as to how we proposed to achieve the objects we all desire.
May I turn now for a moment to a consideration of the Prime Minister's speech. The Prime Minister, I believe, is the most successful man on the earth, so far as I know, in saying beautiful things that have no meaning at all. I think everyone agrees with everything the man says. But nobody ever knows just what he means by what he says. His speech to-day was no exception. At every point where it became necessary to know just what he had in mind, his thoughts were veiled behind beautiful tapestries which hid his real thoughts from us.
I shall endeavour to be specific. Probably I am sometimes a bit too specific, because I find nearly everyone disagreeing with me. That tends to occur when one is specific and says exactly what he means.
I am going to deal with foreign affairs under three main headings; for one has to narrow the compass of his thoughts in order to get anywhere. I shall deal first with the question of international relations as the members of our party look upon international relations. We believe that primarily the first and most important thing for any nation to do is to set its own house in order, and we insist that our nation shall be left free and untrammelled from external restrictions either by contract or by implication of contract, to exercise her complete sovereignty in putting her house in order. Our greatest anxiety as we face the future and listen to the beautiful outbursts of our Prime Minister

and a good many other statesmen to-day is that they are not really cognizant of all the powers which this country needs to retain in order to be able to set her own house in order. We believe that if the purchasing power within the country of Canada is raised to the right level, and that if we have fair prices so that we can have plenty for all; if we can have a rich and varied industrial development which will enable us to produce to the highest degree the needs of Canada, we shall be on our way to putting our own house in order; and that unless we have all these things we shall not be on our way to putting our own house in order. We believe too that if we provide as far as possible for our own needs, thereby avoiding the obligation of trading unnecessarily, we shall place our feet on the solid rock of substantial reality which will enable us to stand against the storms of time.
Beyond producing our own needs in Canada it will be essential that we develop our resources to a degree which will enable us to help our neighbours to obtain their needs. If I may cite as an example one of the nations with whom we are at war, all hon. members realize that Japan is not bountifully endowed by nature as is Canada. I think we realized that when we granted Japan special privileges in our fishing waters. When the war is over and we shall have beaten Japan to her knees, and further than that, the problem will arise, how are we going to build up a world in which the Japanese not yet born will be able to live and have as good a chance as the Canadians who are not yet born? We must face that problem fairly and squarely; if we do not, we shall betray the responsibilities which rest inevitably upon us in the position of trust in which our fellow countrymen have placed us.
Canadian production should make allowance not only for supplying Canada with all She needs, but for supplying Japan, and other nations less bountifully and fortunately endowed than we, with a certain amount of what they need in order that their standard of living may be what it ought to be in a world of abundance, a world as happy as ours should be if only we learned how to manage it.
Up to the present time practically everyone in Canada and the United States, and in fact all these united nations which are working together, has thought only of producing goods which he hoped to sell to somebody else, regardless of whether the somebody else wanted the goods, regardless of whether the sale would injure some other nation. We must change our outlook entirely with respect

Supply-External Affairs
to this matter. Our aim must not be to produce the goods which we think we can crowd into other people's markets to their advantage or not, to the disadvantage of other nations or not; we must produce the goods which other nations need and which they will request from us. This is an extremely important matter. If we produce goods to obtrude them into the world's markets, we shall be encouraging an international trade competition which will result in trade rivalry, which will lead to trade war, which will bring about military war as sure as we are all sitting here in this house, just as it resulted in the war in which we are now engaged. For one of the major causes of war is commercial rivalry, trade war. If we are wise we shall build for a future in which trade wars will be unnecessary. True, that will require the application of a number of principles with which very few people in this house and in this country are familiar. There will have to be a new order established, and perforce new principles must underlie that new order.
So that the members of my party take the stand, first of all, that Canada must show the world, by putting her own house in order, that a people with the economic security and democratic freedom which our people can be brought to enjoy will not covet their neighbour's possessions, that they will be happy, not disposed to risk war, not disposed to prepare for war.
Much has been said of the fact that the United States and Canada have lived together over a hundred years without having any fortifications along their border. Not much is said of the fact that neither one of these nations needed anything the other nation had. In other words, the cause of war between the two nations had been in large measure removed. It might not have resulted so happily had conditions been otherwise. We believe that if we can enable nations like Germany after the war to have, first, security, and afterwards, a democratic freedom, they will not study war nor the making of war. We believe that Canada can be made to show, by setting her own house in order, that that is possible, and we believe that in order to enable Germany to be secure, too, there are several principles of international relations which should apply.
Canada should encourage trade with other countries of a reciprocal and mutually acceptable basis, avoiding cut-throat competition for foreign markets, which results in bitter commercial rivalry. As I said a minute ago, how to do that is the problem. May I say here that the Prime Minister has not indicated in
the slightest degree that he knows anything at all about how to do that, and I will challenge any hon. member on the Liberal side to indicate where the Prime Minister has shown that he knows how to do it. The coast is free; hon. members can rise and speak after I have finished.
In addition, Social Creditors advocate the principle that we exercise and maintain unimpaired, as a member of the British commonwealth, our sovereign authority to order our own affairs in accordance with the will of our people.
May I refer to one thing that was tabled in the house not very long ago. I do so to illustrate how that sovereign power could be destroyed without our realizing it. I refer to the little pamphlet which every member has received, "International Stabilization of Currencies." I have been told that Canada has submitted a plan of her own, or at least she is preparing a plan of her own for submission, which, I take it, indicates that Canada is not satisfied with either of the plans advanced in this pamphlet, namely the Keynes plan and the Morgenthau plan. If Canada has rejected these two plans and has a plan of her own, I say that is an exceedingly complimentary thing to the dominion. For these two plans are pernicious in a high degree.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where has the hon. gentleman heard that Canada has submitted a plan? That is news to most of us.


John Horne Blackmore: I have just heard that. If I am wrong, the Prime Minister will set me right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am interested to know.


John Horne Blackmore: I too am interested to know and possibly the Prime Minister will tell us whether Canada is preparing to accept either of the plans to which I have referred. If so, then Canada is preparing to yield her sovereignty in a way which will prevent her from ever setting her own house in order. Let me read three or four statements from the Morgenthau plan, and I ask hon. members to weigh the significance of these statements. Every member has a copy of the pamphlet and, I trust, has read it with oare. I quote from Division VI:
Each member country of the Fund-
Which would be the name of the supranational government to which we would subscribe.
Each member country of the Fund undertakes the following:
Supply-External Affairs

I go down the list and read 3C, and I commend it to every hon. member of this house:
Such other measures as the Fund shall recommend-
Perhaps I should read No. 1 in order to show how that passage fits in:
' To maintain by appropriate action exchange rates established by the Fund on the currencies of other countries and not to alter exchange rates except w-ith the consent of the Fund and only to the extent and in the direction approved by the Fund. Exchange rates of member countries may be permitted to fluctuate within a specified range fixed by the Fund.
There is a great deal more in that than appears on the surface. And now 3C:
Such other measures as the Fund shall recommend-
In other words, if the Fund saw fit to recommend that Canada completely dismantle her beet sugar industry, Canada would do it. If the Fund saw fit to recommend that Canada should go out of the sheep business entirely, Canada would humbly do it. Let me read 5:
To give consideration to the views of the Fund on any existing or proposed monetary or economic policy the effect of which would be to bring about sooner or later serious disequilibrium in the balance of payments of other countries.
If Canada had signed an agreement like that, in vain would the hon. member for Davenport make that excellent suggestion of his with respect to using the waters of the Saskatchewan river in order to bless the whole of the dried area of central Canada, because the Fund could prevent that being done on the plea that it would upset the economy of Canada. Again, take No. 7:
To adopt appropriate legislation or decrees to carry out its undertakings to the Fund and to facilitate the activities of the Fund.
I mention this in passing to indicate the sort of thing to which Canada might blindly commit herself if she accepted the proposals of many of these planners who are having so much to say and to do in connection with the building up of the new order which is to be. Social Crediters are unalterably opposed to committing Canada to any such proposal, which would interfere with the ability of this country to put her own house in order and to govern herself.
Another principle which we advocate with respect to international relations is this: to maintain our armed forces at a strength adequate for national defence under the sovereign control of the people of Canada, and in no circumstances to surrender such control to any external authority. Far be it from us to accept the principle of any international police force, the activities of which might be 
governed by a Sir Montagu Norman or a Sir Otto Neimeyer, or a Mr. McKitrick, of Uie United States, or any junta of men meeting at Basel, Switzerland. We advocate that Canada maintain control of her own forces and keep them at a sufficient degree of efficiency .to enable her to discharge her responsibilities in the world to come.
Another principle we advocate is this: To recognize the sovereign integrity of all other nations and to exercise scrupulous care not to interfere in the internal affairs of any other country.
Again, we believe that Canada should abolish all unnecessary' barriers to trade and to travel, and that Canada should make available to the nations whose domestic needs require them, on reasonable and mutually agreeable conditions, the raw materials of which Canada has an abundance. Let me recall the importance of considering Japan in this connection. Just now, I know, our feelings towards Japan are heated, but the day will come when the world will be at peace and we must look upon Japan not as an enemy but as a friend, and look sympathetically upon the plight with which she is faced, with 77,000,000 people in the area, small and restricted as well as unproductive, in which Providence has placed her.
Further, we advocate that we strive consistently with other nations for the establishment of good-will among the peoples of the world. It is utterly impossible to establish good-will among the peoples of the world while our nation has a high standard of living and other nations are unable to procure the necessities of life; while the Japanese, for instance, are working at a low standard of living, as are the Hindus and the Indian people, and Canada a.t the high standard of living which is possible for us. It will be utterly impossible to have international goodwill under such circumstances.
May I say a word with regard to foreign trade. Our trade relations with other countries should be based upon the reciprocal and mutually agreeable exchange of surplus goods and surplus services. In bringing into being this policy we should observe certain financial principles. I will lay down these principles. We have no use for any such schemes as the two to which I have referred, which are pernicious from beginning to end and are designed to enslave mankind. On the contrary, we favour these principles: First, that there shall be a complete abandonment of the so-called gold standard or any gold basis for the control of the national economy. Gold has enslaved mankind for thousands of

Supply-External Affairs
years, and gold will always enslave mankind wherever it may be used as the basis for currency. Second, that the home market shall be provided with sufficient purchasing power to buy the goods offered for sale at economic .prices. This principle has never yet been applied in the history of the world, never once, and it has never been dreamed of in the Dominion of Canada. I doubt if the Prime Minister conceives of it to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does my hon. friend get it if it has never been dreamed of?


John Horne Blackmore: Supply-External Affairs

measure the inequalities which have developed because of the shortsighted immigration policy of the dominion government in the past.
The fourth principle is that each province shall be given a voice in the allocation of the settlers within its boundaries. I am not making a pronouncement one way or another on the question I now mention, but in my province we have a problem created by the Hutterites. Assume that a Hutterite colony came in and settled near Ottawa, in the outskirts. They would continue to increase, they would buy up additional pieces of land, and in due time there would be a ring of Hutterite colonies around Ottawa. The Ontario government would be helpless to deal with the problem, because to-day this is a dominion matter. Every law that Ontario might pass to deal with the question would be disallowed by Ottawa, just as the Prime Minister took action recently to disallow a law which Alberta passed in an endeavour to deal with the Hutterite situation. What would be the result if this were allowed to go on for two hundred years? What freedom, justice and liberty would there be in the province of Ontario? It was easy for the dominion government to make an agreement with the Hutterites and then leave the provinces to take the rap. The provinces are still taking the rap, and the dominion is just doing nothing about it. The application of my fourth principle would overcome this problem. It would make the dominion a little more cautious about what kind of agreement it entered into.
The fifth principle is that a proper standard of living shall be assured the present population of Canada before allowing an influx of immigrants who have no assets or visible means of support. There will arise in the minds of many the question: what is the use of admitting more immigrants into Canada when we are unable to give employment to the people who are already here? It may be proposed that we shall admit only those who can contribute to our production, of shoes, for example-I understand that certain Czechs came in to manufacture shoes. Now another question immediately arises in the minds of every fact-facing man. What are we going to do about the shoes we are at present producing and which will be displaced by the production of those Czechs? Where are we going to sell the goods? No matter from what angle we view this question of immigration, we find cause for anxiety and concern.
May I raise four questions of criticism of the Prime Minister's efforts before I sit down? There are great problems to be solved. I began to talk about these problems last night when I discussed inflation. I know I make myself

annoying to many members of the House of Commons when I begin to discuss money matters; but I know positively as a responsible member of this House of Commons, understanding the money question, that it is my duty to discuss monetary matters before my fellow members, just as in 1936, 1937 and 1938 it was my duty to discuss the question of beet sugar in this country. I discussed beet sugar with very little respect from the Liberal side, but on that question I was right and they were wrong. It is possible that history may repeat itself this time with respect to money. Again, I shall probably be found right, my critics wrong. From time to time therefore I propose to raise these questions of the way in which to attain freedom from want and fear.
What is the use of having our prime ministers and presidents meet out on the Atlantic and plan a united nations Atlantic charter if we have no way in the world by which the charter's proposals can be implemented, if we have nothing to suggest to overcome what for many years has proved to be deficient? We simply must find a method of doing things in a new way.
I am going to point out the things which I find deficient in the Prime Minister's speech. He did not show us how to carry on trade without trade wars, which means, so far as he knows or has suggested to this country, the minute this war is over we shall begin trade wars again and be sowing the seeds of another war. Inevitably we ourselves will be contributing to the cause of the next war and will blame everybody else but ourselves, just as in this war, after we had abundantly caused the war we blamed Hitler because he started it.
Again the Prime Minister has not shown that he knows anything at all about how to increase home markets or how to increase home consumption-that is, to increase the purchasing power within Canada and to raise the standard of living of the Canadian people without incurring more debt or resorting to more taxation. If he did indicate any such knowledge in any of the speeches that lie has delivered since the outbreak of the war, I shall be very thankful to have someone point out the time and place so that I may refer to it.
The Prime Minister did not tell how to build up international cooperation without such loss of sovereignty as will impair Canada's ability to manage her own household. May I repeat that if the new order which is to be established, if the new international cooperation, involves anything like the international currency stabilization proposal, then it will destroy all possibility of achieving the object for which it is designed. It is supposed to

Supply-External Affairs
increase the prosperity of the world; it will decrease the prosperity of the world and render world conditions utterly hopeless. The Prime Minister has not shown how any such evil result can be avoided. He speaks of international cooperation. Finally the Prime Minister has not shown how to maintain adequate fighting forces-probably this is a bit premature-in Canada and in the British empire to put the empire and this country on a permanent basis of security.
Surely every hon. member of this committee must find his heart filled with misgiving when he looks back into the past and remembers that in 1920 and 1921 the British empire was unchallengeably supreme, and when he reflects that if the British peoples had maintained their military strength to a standard comparable with that maintained in 1920 and 1921 there never could have been a Hitler world without end, and there never could have been any attack on Ethiopia world without end. Yet what happened in the Dominion of Canada? What happened in Britain? The superb navy was in large measure dismantled; the splendid fighting forces were allowed to fall into disuse. What happened in Canada? I hope I shall not offend the Progressive Conservatives over much when I recall to them that it was under the administration of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett that the nails were driven into the coffin of the fighting forces of Canada. What was the reason? We could not afford it; we could not afford to maintain soldiers and airmen. In the light of what has happened since, what ridiculous nonsense!
If the Progressive Conservatives were to gain power after this war, have they indicated by any remarks they have made that they would know any better than to do that same foolhardy thing over again? Have they, by one single word? Has the Prime Minister indicated that he knows how the enormous sums of money can be raised with which to maintain a fighting force comparable to that in which we rejoice at the present time, and which soon will make us supreme in the military affairs of the world? It ought to be possible to maintain a fighting force which will render us secure. I do not wish to disagree unduly with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but I should like to point out-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I wish to inform the hon. member that he has spoken for forty minutes.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this discussion I do not do so with any desire to
72537-290}
place added criticism on the shoulders of the man who is carrying what has been truly called' the awful burden of attending to the affairs of Canada in this crisis; 'but it is usually the custom to take advantage of this item to discuss the relationship of Canada with foreign nations, and I wish to exercise that privilege now.
British Columbia is waiting very anxiously for the words that may fall from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to-day, waiting for a lead, waiting for a declaration of policy on a matter about which they are exceedingly bitter. I have lived there for forty-seven years and I have never seen British Columbia so strongly united on one subject and at the same time so bitter about it; "therefore I think this is a proper time to ask the Prime Minister what his policy will be, first as regards the Japanese who are now in Canada and second, those who are now in Japan. We had a discussion a few days ago about it, therefore I need not rehash what was said then. However, I am going to take up a little time to explain the case at least to eastern members who are not so well informed and who have come into the house only comparatively recently.
Away back some fifty years ago, when oriental immigration first began, British Columbia became annoyed about the class and numbers of immigrants that were coming from China at that time. They were of a coolie type, and they were dangerous to our economic well-being. Pressure was brought to bear on the government and they put a tax of $50 on every Chinaman who came into the country. Well, that did not do any good, and they raised it to $100 and later on to $500, and still it was ineffective for this reason. The Chinaman mortgaged his soul and everything else he possessed to some Chinese financial company which put up the $500, and the wretched immigrant was simply a peon to that company for many years, until he had paid it back. The Japanese were dealt with by some form of gentleman's agreement. We have had several versions of it which usually worked well for a little while, until the wily oriental discovered a way of evading them.
I shall now deal with the Chinese. Along about 1923 the government passed legislation excluding entirely all Chinese immigrants, or practically all. Of course members of 'the diplomatic corps, and a few persons of that type, were allowed in. But to all intents and purposes the Chinese-the labouring class and every other class-were prohibited from settling in this country. It has worked. I pressed the government very much at that
Supply-External Affairs

time-I begged 'them-to apply the same treatment to all orientals, to use the word "orientals" rather than "Chinese". However the government did not do it. Along about 1928 or 1929 the government amended the gentleman's agreement, so far as the Japanese were concerned, to make it more effective. And yet sooner or later the Japanese found a way of shooting holes in it.
I never let uip in my efforts, and along about 1938, after I had been watching all the time, trying to .press this thing, because I knew how deeply it concerned the people of my province, and eighteen months before the war, I thought I saw a chance when conditions were more favourable, and as a result I brought in bill No. 11, which placed the Japanese in exactly the same position as the Chinese are. In that bill I simply used the word "oriental" instead of the word "Chinese". This was exactly the same type of bill that had been passed fifteen years earlier in regard to -the Chinese. The government voted it down, saying that it would be displeasing to the Japanese, and that .they did not wish to have any possibility of trouble with the imperial government.
I then introduced bill No. 38, which was entirely different. It provided an educational test, and was designed to keep out orientals. It followed largely the form of the measure recommended by the Eight Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, about which the hon. member for Vancouver South spoke the other day. Mr. Chamberlain strongly urged Canada to adopt the Natal act. It was almost word for word with that act, an act which has kept the orientals out of New Zealand and Australia, and I believe South Africa, for thirty years. The government opposed it on a technicality and the bill was thrown out. Later however I had a chance to reintroduce it. It then became bill No. 112, with the technicality taken care of. This second bill forbade the immigration of anyone-it did not refer to Japanese, Chinese or any others specifically-who could not pass a reading test in the French, English or some language or dialect to be found in Europe. This excluded about seventy-five per cent of the world's population, so that it could not be said that it was aimed at excluding only Japanese. And it would have had the effect of carrying out all the principles of the Natal act. This was opposed by the government.
Alt this point I should like to quote a few remarks I made on that occasion. The government had declared their intention of defeating this bill also, but without giving any reasons against it-because the reasons
I Mr WeHl.1
alleged against the earlier bill were nonexistent so far as this one was concerned. It was not directed against Chinese or Japanese particularly, but affected about seventy-five per cent of the world's population. This is what I said as reported at page 3410 of Hansard, 11938:
Is it because the government get political hysterics every time the name of Japan is mentioned? We dare not deal with the strictly domestic matter of our own immigration for fear-and fear is an ugly word, Mr. Speaker- that an alien heathen nation, that has no claim whatever to a grievance, might not like it, a nation whose best claim to fame at the present moment is the fact that it is raping and ravaging a friendly nation whose territory it swore a few short years ago to protect and maintain.	.
Now, this thing is cumulative. Where is it going to stop? If we yield five per cent of our rights to-day for the sake of peace, six months hence we shall be required to surrender ten per cent, and a year afterwards they will want fifty per cent. Other nations will imitate this policy, and we shall lose their respect.
How did we get their respect? We became a nation, not by the Statute of Westminster alone that we hear so much about, but through the blood and treasure we spent in France to prevent Canada from becoming a German colony. The Statute of Westminster did something. It gave us power to make our own treaties. A lot of good that did us. If we set our feet on the fatal, bitter path I have outlined, soon we shall not be allowed to make our own treaties; we shall not even be allowed to make our own pyjamas, because Japan will discover that she can make them cheaper because of her low standard of living, and sell them cheaper in Toronto than the cost of the raw material. If that is to be our policy, we had better tear up the Statute of Westminster and crawl back as a colony under the overburdened protection of the British nation. At least we would be safe there; yes, cheaply safe, would we not? Britain would give it to us, give it to us to the last exhaustion of her strained powers, and she would not worry and fuss because every now and again we debate whether we would be at war when she is at war. But what a humiliation it would be f-or- us as a nation and as individuals! . . .
And further on I said this:
To-night we are at the forks of the road. We can say to Japan: "We have not passed this bill because we thought you might not like it. We have not exactly cut loose from Britain, but we have indicated that there is no obligation, that there are no commitments if she is in trouble and to that extent we have weakened her in the eyes of the world; you have our sympathy; we hope you will not be too hard on us." Shall we take that degrading and humiliating position, or shall we say to Japan and to the world, "When Britain is in trouble we are in trouble; when Britain is at war we are at war, and when Britain is at war while we cannot bind future parliaments as to the amount of participation, any more than the British parliament is bound, we will do our part; we are solidly behind Great Britain economically, financially and in every other way to the best of our ability." Then, let us say to Japan, "We are determined to run and

Supply-External Affairs
control our own domestic affairs, of which immigration is one, and another is to decide whether people can be deported or not. That is another privilege and we are going to use it. We are solidly behind the British nation, and the British nation is solidly behind us." That would be the end of it. That would be a policy of courage, a policy of dignity and self-respect, both for us and from the other nations, and one that would make for the preservation of peace, a bold policy which would put us in standing and reputation with all the nations of the world. Whether we take the short vision of the immediate future or the long vision down the vista of time, it would be a policy that would immediately and ultimately work for the benefit of British Columbia, of Canada and of the British empire in which we are all concerned. I think the first step towards the announcement and the initiation of such a policy would be for us to pass this bill which is before us to-night.
Remember, that was eighteen months before the war. How prophetically true some of it is to-day. It was opposed by the government, and defeated by a somewhat smaller majority -much smaller-than usual.
I pause here to wonder. I wonder if when the Japanese government decided to go to war they were at all influenced by what took place that night in the House of Commons in 1938. No sane person in Canada, no Canadian, doubted that we would line up as we have lined up. But the oriental mind is not the occidental mind. When they read these repeated utterances with respect to our making no commitments, when they realized how quickly and urgently we had acted at the time of the last war but were now making no commitments, and actually voting down the bill I have mentioned-one which did not apply directly to the Japanese, but applied to seventy-five per cent of the world's population-they, in their oriental minds might have thought-and, of course, wrongly-that we as a nation were unwilling to displease the Japanese, and that we might possibly stay neutral, or have a neutral attitude in the event of a war. A firm stand then on our part would at least not have been open to any misconception in the oriental mind.
But, be that as it may, my thought in speaking now is to urge that we face the situation as it is. W'hat we want now-and I know I speak for the people of British Columbia-is to know whether the government is now prepared to pass a bill for the exclusion of the Japanese-to prevent any further immigration. Is the government also *prepared to insist at the peace conference that the Japanese in Canada will be repatriated? I would ask the Prime Minister, if he favours us with a reply, not to pass this issue off by saying, "Our first business is to win the war; it will be time enough to discuss
other matters afterwards." No, it will be too late then, because repatriation will have to be one of the terms of peace, because, once peace is declared, a British subject could not be deported. But it can be done through the terms of peace. We are only asking for an announcement of the policy of the Prime Minister and his government in days to come-we are not asking him to do something which would embarrass him in his relations with other nations at the moment, but that he will prohibit the Japanese from entering Canada hereafter. We ask also for an assurance that at the peace conference-we know he cannot do everything he likes, but we do know the great influence he must possess there on account of the part that Canada has played in this war-he will use that great influence in favour of repatriation of the Japs. So the two things we ask now are that he gives us the assurance that he will prohibit Japanese immigration into Canada for all time, and use his influence at the peace conference for the repatriation of all persons of Japanese origin.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the committee's proceedings but I rise to a question of privilege. I have deferred bringing it up before because I wanted to get some dates that I have now received, and regarding which I should like to make a statement.
I refer hon. members to the statement made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury last night as it appears in Hansard at page 4533. After the Minister of Labour had spoken the hon. member said:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	I have only
to observe that that was not the case with respect to the government's man-power policy in the early stages.
The Minister of Labour had said that if any statement of policy were to be made he would make it in the house. Then the hon. member for York-Sunbury goes on:
Who laid down the policy for the Department of National Defence after the mobilization act was passed? Who was the government's spokesman before the Canadian club at Ottawa but the chief of general staff of this country when the minister did not have the guts to get up and do it himself.
The hon. member refers to the policy with regard to the thirty-day training programme which was put into force in 1940, and the implication, and not only the implication but the statement is there, that the minister had not the courage to make an announcement in the house with regard to that policy but left it to the chief of the general staff to make the announcement. I have looked up the facts
Supply-External Affairs

and the dates, and if the hon. member had been sticking to the facts he would have said that, on July 29, 1940, three months before the chief of the general staff spoke on the subject, I made a very full statement in the house with regard to the government's defence programme in which I dealt particularly with the thirty-day training policy. I do not propose to trouble the committee by reading that statement of mine with regard to the thirty-day training plan. It appears in Hansard of July 29, 1940, at pages 2094 and 2096.
In order to ascertain whether there could have been any doubt in the public mind about the minister having made such a statement I looked at the newspapers and I found that the Montreal Gazette of July 30, 1940, nearly three months before the chief of the general staff spoke to the Canadian club, carried this headline right across the front page:
Drafted militia to start training October 1 [DOT]-Will call 30,000 monthly for thirty days of army drill under new defence policy.
On the same page of the Gazette appears a summary by the Canadian Press in which this paragraph [DOT] appears:
Compulsory training of men called starts October 1 with 30,000 a month called and trained thereafter.
I might add that on September 13, 1940, over a month before the chief of the general staff made his speech to the Canadian club, the proclamation with respect to the thirty-days training was issued and appeared in the papers of this country on September 19, 1940. Further, in order that it may be understood that the public was thoroughly acquainted with the thirty-days training policy which I as the minister principally concerned had announced in the house on July 29, the first camp was held on October 9, 1940, two weeks before the chief of the general staff made his speech to the Canadian club.
With these facts before him, Mr. Chairman, one can hardly understand a member of this house, and particularly a member of the legal profession, who ought to be careful in regard to the facts when making a statement, making the statement which the hon. member for York-Sunbury did last night, indicating that the chief of the general staff had to make this announcement on behalf of the minister because the minister did not have the guts to make the announcement himself.
I want to add that General Crerar was not the spokesman for the government. This matter has been brought up twice before by my hon. friend and on the last occasion he had the propriety to withdraw the statement which he had made to the effect that the chief of the general staff was put up by the

government to introduce the subject of thirty-days training. The hon. member withdrew that statement and his withdrawal appears at page 1556 of Hansard of March 14, 1941.
All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that on both counts my hon. friend's statement is incorrect and without any foundation whatever. I do not want to lengthen the discussion or add to the acidity of the remarks my hon. friend has made, but I do want to say that at least in my humble opinion my hon. friend is entirely too prone to make on the spur of the moment interjections which are not in line with facts. I want to say further that we might expect better of my hon. friend in that respect as a member of my own profession. To make a statement regarding a member which is wholly unfounded in fact is bad enough, but to make it in the language which my hon. friend used, which was both crude and offensive, is an offence against the rules of debate, and I ask my hon. friend to withdraw the statement in its entirety. I leave it to him to make any amends he thinks are appropriate under the circumstances, having regard to the relations that exist between members of this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I have this to observe, that when I made the statement I made last night in response to the statement of the Minister of Labour that when any government policy was to be announced the announcement would be made in the house, I had in mind that on very many occasions government policy was not announced in parliament but was announced through the medium of the radio, press releases and the like, and I thought that -was improper. The chief offence that I have committed, if one is to characterize it as an offence, is the use of a good old Anglo-Saxon word "guts".


James Layton Ralston: Not by any means.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that has wounded the susceptibilities of the Minister of National Defence I will substitute for it the words "intestinal fortitude", which may be a little more palatable. But I adhere in general to the observations I have made in this house on more than one occasion that government policy has more often been announced outside this house than inside.


Mr. LITTLE:: Not on that occasion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not concerned with that particular occasion. I am deprecating the practice which has grown up ever since the war started of announcing government policy outside the house and enunciated outside this house by men who are not responsible to parliament.

Supply-External Affairs


James Layton Ralston: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have cited two specific instances in which the hon. member for York-Sunbury has made a statement regarding myself which is contrary to the facts. I have also quoted the offensive word which my hon. friend has used, contrary to the rules of debate.
I submit this is not the time for my hon. friend to be making a general statement, going all around the subject. I ask him either as a man or as a member, and I believe he is both, to withdraw his statement or else take the consequences. I ask him to abide by the ruling of the Chair. I should have expected my hon. friend, when faced with the statement I have just made to the effect that I had announced the thirty-day training plan in this house three months before the chief of the general staff made his speech to the Canadian club, to say, "I was wrong and I withdraw". I suggest also that he might have been expected to withdraw the word he used which was offensive. By the way, Mr. Chairman, this is the same gentleman who objected to my using the word "gibe" with reference to something he had said, and which I readily withdrew. I say to my hon. friend and to you, Mr. Chairman, that we are now engaged with only one matter, and that is the question of privilege with regard to myself. I ask that the hon. gentleman withdraw.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that in a matter of this kind the hon. gentleman can ask me to withdraw. He can state his position and the matter ends there.


James Layton Ralston: Not at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the chairman rules that I must withdraw I will withdraw, but on the general principle of the policy which I was attacking, that the government's policy has never on any occasion been announced in this house, but outside .the house, and by irresponsible officers of the government, I do not withdraw.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend did not even mention anything with regard to general principle. He made the statement concerning myself that I had not the guts ,to stand up and announce a policy in the house, but that I left it to the chief of the general staff. I have stated that, three months before the chief of the general staff made his address, I announced this policy in the house, and I have shown that it had received attention in the press of the country. I ask my hon. friend, who is an old parliamentarian, if he withdraws that statement or not. Surely anyone knowing the
practice of this house should not get up and talk all around the point, the way the hon. member has.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister says that on the express item under discussion I am in error, and he has Hansard there to prove it, I will withdraw the remark, but I do not withdraw the charge which underlies the statement I made, that, as a matter of general policy, .this government has more often erred in announcing government policy outside the house when parliament was not in session than when it was in session. And that is what the Minister of Labour was endeavouring .to say, that he has always laid down matters of policy-


James Layton Ralston: I am not interested in the Minister of Labour on this point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I think I should have some rights in this discussion.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member must confine himself to the point. My hon. friend had it his own way last night when he got up and made a statement when I was not here.
I say as a lawyer he is faced with the facts.
I have referred to Hansard and given him the reference, and I have read him the newspaper report with regard to the matter. I should think he would have shown greater courtesy and compliance with the rules of debate had he withdrawn at once the offensive statement he made.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


James Layton Ralston: I am speaking to a point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: On the point of order, I submit respectfully that the only words which an hon. member must withdraw are words which are unparliamentary.


An hon. MEMBER:: False statements.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I submit, Mr. Chairman, what you have to decide is whether or not the language used by the hon. member for York-Sunbury was parliamentary. If it was parliamentary, he has not to withdraw it, and if it was unparliamentary, he must withdraw it. I will tell you the reason, and it is obvious. When an hon. member makes a statement about a thing which has been done by another hon. member, when it is not a thing which is against the laws of the country, and when the other hon. member rises and denies it, it is up to us to make our choice between what has been said by either member. The statement is there and the denial is there. Well, what have you to decide? We assume,
Supply-External Affairs

sir, that when an hon. member makes a remark which is not unparliamentary about another hon. member and the latter rises in his seat to contradict him and deny what has been said, the incident must be closed. If I say this, it is because I suffered so much at the hands of a previous Speaker and a previous chairman of the committee of the whole that I took the trouble to study the whole matter. Now it is up to you to decide whether the language of the hon. gentleman was parliamentary or not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before you make your decision, Mr. Chairman, allow me to say that my apprehension of the rules is decidedly along the line enunciated' by the hon. member for Temiscouata. If I have used unparliamentary language I must withdraw it. If I used unparliamentary language yesterday I do withdraw it. But with respect to the opinion which I gave yesterday and to which I endeavoured to give re-expression to-day, I adhere to it.


James Layton Ralston: This very same statement was withdrawn a year ago-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably
under pressure.


James Layton Ralston: Well, under pressure or not under pressure; is my hon. friend withdrawing the withdrawal now? This statement with regard to the chief of the general staff was withdrawn a year ago. All I want to say is that the accusation of a minister not having the guts to get up and make an announcement of a policy, when it is both false and offensive, is unparliamentary; secondly, that my hon. friend does have to accept the statement of another member, particularly when he is faced with Hansard and faced with the extracts which I have read.


Mr. DUPUIS:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it the situation is this. According to the records of the house the hon. member for York-Sunbury said that the policy of thirty days' training was announced by the chief of the general staff, whereas in fact the minister proves that three months before the chief of the general staff announced that outside of the house, the minister himself had announced the policy in this house. I claim that not only is the word "guts" offensive, but the opinion which the hon. member just expressed is wrong and false, and in these circumstances I humbly submit that a false statement must be withdrawn. The hon. member for York-Sunbury is a gentleman and an old parliamentarian, whom I have often admired for what he did in the house when he

was chief of his party, and I know that he will not allow it to be said in this house by future hon. members that he set a bad example for those who come after him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a great blandishment, I am sure.


Vincent Dupuis: That it is a false statement, if I may use so strong a word, has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt by the Minister of National Defence. He has referred to Hansard of September, 1940, three months before the chief of staff ever made a pronouncement; the statement in the newspaper is produced, everything is proved, including the proclamation; all the evidence is adduced sufficient to show to the satisfaction of the hon. member for York-Sunbury that he made a mistake. If one would not venture to say his statement was false, at any rate it was incorrect. It is the same as though I would say that the hon. member for Temiscouata came to Chambly and preached communism,; it would not be unparliamentary but it would be false, and he would have the right to rise in his place and say that I should withdraw .that statement because it is false. Consequently I expect, as I believe every hon. member irrespective of party expects, that the hon. gentleman will make an unqualified withdrawal.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The question of
privilege brought up by the Minister of National Defence is indeed an intricate one. First, it implies the matter of a personal attack or reflection which must of necessity be withdrawn. It also implies a wide statement relative to a large section of our active service force or ranking military officers. I will read to the committee standing order 41. citation 313:
14 has been formally ruled by Speakers in the Canadian commons that a statement by an bon. member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted,-
Of course that will apply to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence denying that the statement made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury is a true one. In a matter of the kind there is no question of a personal attack; it is a matter of accepting a statement made by the minister. The citation continues:
-but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made toy a member as being contrary to the facts; tout no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
I have listened attentively to the discussion and in my opinion the member for York-Sunbury has withdrawn his remarks with reference to the Minister of National Defence, and done so unequivocally. I suggest to the

Supply-External Affairs
hon. member that he should accept the statement of the minister so far as he himself is concerned, and that if I understood him rightly, he also acquiesced in that statement. This is the ruling that I am applying to the point of order and question of privilege.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I wish to say just a few words in this debate. The Prime Minister need not weary in well doing, and he may take comfort in the reflection that there has never been a subject like foreign affairs on which any two persons in this country have agreed. There will always be wide differences of opinion between those who do not and those who do take the view that the British empire has been, throughout the ages, the agency that has promoted the welfare of humanity and preserved the liberties of civilization. We have two great races in this country who were allies in the last war, and our partners of that time deserved a better fate than befell them.
I suggest that we have never had a foreign policy in Canada. This debate has shown the wavering and the doubts and fears which many members have had in this house. It seems that some hon. members have always wanted to depend on other people for our security-on peace pacts, on- leagues, on doctrines of collective security, on pan-Americanism, the Monroe doctrine, the Kellogg pact, the Locarno treaty, the Briand pact and many other promises of that sort. These gentlemen have always depended upon these props for the security of this country.
Now is the time for us to recapture the spirit of the empire, because if we do not recapture that spirit when the country is at war we shall forget all about it when the war is over. There has been the same trouble in all the democratic countries, Canada, the mother country and the United States. Not one of these ever had a foreign policy. Canada has never had a foreign policy, nor has the United States, and the result is that we found ourselves in this awful war. When the great Napoleonic war which lasted for twenty-three years, from 1793 on, broke out, it found Britain unprepared. We nearly lost that war, the first half of which ended in the peace of Amiens in 1801. The British people at that time were depending on the hope of peace and on the pacifist spirit and had no adequate forces for defence, and the war that broke out again in 1801, and lasted until 1815 again saw the British people unprepared, although they won it. Again, the twenty years between these two great modern wars, 1918 to 1938, have been the most disastrous in
the history of civilization. In fact, civilization was nearly ended when in 1939 this present war broke out.
If we are to continue this state of affairs we are going to have another war and it will not be very long after this one is over. I say to the Prime Minister: Do not forget, in dealing with foreign affairs, that Russia is not at war with Japan, nor is China at war with Germany. Do not forget these two principles. We are allied to two great imperial powers, splendid countries, the United States and Russia. They may not be imperial in the sense of wanting to grab territory; that remains to be seen. But if we are to judge by certain things that have been said in the United States senate and congress with reference to this question, we cannot be too sure on this point. One senator, from Maryland, wishes to have outright possession of the British Caribbean bases. Senator Reynolds of North Carolina wants Wrangel island and certain Dutch possessions in the western hemisphere to go to the United States, and other senators want Bermuda and so on. They also make reference to the lease-lend act. I say, they may not be imperial in the sense of wanting to appropriate territory,, but some of their leading public men have indicated a desire for something of that sort.
Russia is in the same position. They are imperial like the United States in the sense that they want to have a much larger share in world affairs and a much larger share in the peace terms and in the new world to come, and unless Canada is wrapped up with the British empire, unless she is part and parcel of the commonwealth to which we belong, her position may be precarious, and we shall have little say in the peace terms. The Canadian people have shown unequivocally that they want to remain in the empire. The old empire may have gone but there is a new empire to take its place, and it will stand, as the old empire has always stood down through the ages, for all that will advance the cause of humanity. The people of this country, on the occasion of the visit of their majesties in 1939, showed the tremendous popularity of the monarchy in Canada. That spirit was demonstrated in all our provinces and nowhere more fully than in Quebec where the school children gave them such a magnificent reception.
I believe in a foreign policy for Canada. We have none at the present time. Can any hon. member tell me what the foreign policy of Canada was before the war? We had none. We had no foreign policy in the twenty years that intervened between the first great war
Supply-External Affairs

and this one. As I say, there were people in this country who were depending upon pacifist agencies that preached international security and international peace, for the preservation of the freedom which we, in common with the people in the rest of the empire, have enjoyed for so long. But all these peace hopes collapsed in 1939 and we found ourselves in this greatest war of all times.
Let us not forget the lessons of history in this regard. One eminent author has made this statement. He says that we are gambling with the lives and happiness of millions, and the human race is in jeopardy. We cannot be forever blowing bubbles and talking a lot of salon sentimental nonsense about the true Germans. If that is what a voluble selfrighteous section of the British intelligentsia have been talking for the past twenty years, he says, then it is hopeless.
In the twenty years between the two wars the democracies all lost the sense of self-preservation in their lunatic policies of disarmament. They no longer thought it necessary that we should have armies, navies or air forces. They simply abandoned any attempt at self-preservation, and that apathy helped to bring on this war. Political apathy and ignorance are the axis' best friends. The same propaganda is going on now, and we are faced with a total lack of any foreign policy. This is equally true of the United States and the mother country. No great country has ever existed for so long a time with so little in the form of a foreign policy as the United States. A foreign policy involves certain commitments in the way of preparedness, but the United States, Britain, and Canada as well, thought of nothing but disarmament. As I say, we had lost the instinct of self-preservation. The fact is that we have never really studied the German political soul in all its horror. As Mrs. Maxse in England has said: We are fighting against a deadweight of dead yesterdays, and Germany has been strong because we have been the ally of laissez-faire. We have fought two world wars in the space of one generation because we would not face the facts. Germany has fought five great wars in the last eighty years and there will be another war. But people will be found who will talk about poor old Germany and allow her to rebuild after this second great conflict. The German people are the same yesterday, to-day and forever. The first I learned about them was in reading Tacitus and the story of the Holy Roman Empire by Bryce and Gibbon, and then we come to the wars	of Frederick the Great, at
Silesia, and continue on to the last war and this one. Yes, Mr. Chairman; the German people are the same yesterday, to-day and forever, and there is no use slobbering over these people. They hate Britain, they hate Canada, they hate the British empire. They are out to beat the rest of the world because they want wmrld domination. If we allow this thing to happen there will be a third war. That is what may happen if we accept the position that has been proposed in this house in the last few days as the basis of our foreign policy. Are we to depend upon some other international body? There will always be nations. Are we to depend upon a new pacifist league or some such thing, as was said in the house on July 1? I am absolutely opposed to this doctrine and I have been consistently opposed to it. You will have to arm all along the line and keep armed. After this war is over you will find that our great allies to the south will be isolationists again. I read the debates of the Senate and the House of Representatives and I know what is happening. That country speaks with two voices. Those people are our friends and neighbours, we are fond of them, we have good relations with them because they are our kith and kin, but after all is said and done they will respect us much more if we tell them the truth, if we tell them what we are doing to preserve peace and progress in the world. I know a great many United States people and I have a great many friends in that country. I believe the average United States citizen would be better pleased if the people of this country stood up for their own country once in a while.
We have a glorious empire and the administration of our colonial empire will be one of the glorious pages of history. I believe in what Mr. Churchill said the other day. and I think the overwhelming majority of this country do so as well. He said that he had not become Prime Minister in order to see the empire liquidated, or to see the empire go down under the hammer by default. If she does go down, what will happen to Canada? Canada needs the empire and the empire needs Canada. Great Britain needs the United States just as much as the United States needs Great Britain. I believe in what Mr. Churchill said. I know that our new empire to come after this war will do its duty towards civilization and liberty as it has always done in the past.
We are a democracy, and every democracy that I know of that has existed between the two wars has depended upon the pacifist agencies I have named. We will have the same trouble again. Now is the time to change

Supply-External Affairs
and adopt a different policy. We were not alone in following this course. Other democracy countries became helpless. They thought that everything was over, that there would be no war, that they could disarm and depend upon the league and notes. I have sat in this house for years and I have read the debates that took place in the twenty years between the two wars. I know the attitude adopted by the isolationists and separatists; they contended that we could depend upon these agencies. I can remember March 31, 1939, when a bill was introduced by the former member for Selkirk, Hon. Mr. Thorson. When that bill was proposed if war came Canada should be a neutral country. It sought to define the status of Canada as a belligerent. At that time we had nothing to be belligerent with because we had thrown everything away. There was some support for this bill from all sides of the house, but I opposed it. I have been charged with the unforgivable sin of having been proved to Be right all along on the armament question between the two wars. I was in advance of public opinion om many of these matters, and right along I was in favour of full cooperation and coordination with Great Britain.
I am absolutely opposed to any policy that will bring us into any pan-<American union. We are friends in trade and for peace with them as always. That would be fatal to this country. We have no right to make some political or military agreement with the Latin powers or any other country which have been named in this agreement. Do not forget that these Latin republics are under the lend-lease act. When the lend-lease act was first conceived the United States wras neutral. They had the Johnson act which outlined the status of a belligerent, and treated the axis the same as the peace nations, and they had a cash-and-carry policy, up to six months before the days of Pearl Harbor. Then the lease-lead act came into being but Germany had been given an opportunity to develop her submarine warfare, as the Neutrality Act presented Germany with an Atlantic fleet. This act was devised to enable the countries fighting the axis to obtain United States arms. Then Pearl Harbor happened and we declared war the day after. The Prime Minister acted promptly in the matter.
We nearly had a Pearl Harbor ourselves in the St. Lawrence at St. Pierre-Miquelon. This was prevented by General de Gaulle going in there at the request of the inhabitants and taking over the islands in order to prevent them from falling into German hands. The people on these islands have been friends of Britain for many years
past. When congress declared war the United States declared to bring the conflict to a successful determination and they pledged all the resources of the country to that end. The agreement which the Latin countries who are recipients of the lend-lease have signed contains a clause providing for free commercial intercourse after the war and the reduction of tariffs and all trade barriers. I do not think we should enter a pan-American agreement under circumstances like that. If you do you are going to have another league of nations made up of these countries, some of which have been friendly to our enemies. I am absolutely opposed to that. We have no right to enter into such an arrangement over the heads of other members of the empire. What we want is a united empire and a united policy, not only during the course of the war but when the war is over.
Great Britain should not be blamed for all the things that have been done on foreign policy, because some of the things done in the name of Britain were asked for by the dominions. Look at the statute of Westminster, for instance. I always opposed that in this house. It was in that statute that we heard the high-sounding words "commonwealth of nations". I think I heard them for the first time, used by Lord Rosebery in 1905. In my opinion this is" simply an empire-wrecking statute that divided the dominion and empire, and it is one of the reasons why we have had a second war. I do not know whether Australia or New Zealand have signed it yet, but I believe it has been up recently for discussion. We shall have to have a foreign policy based on the principle that right plus might is right. No longer can -we throw away our defence. We shall have, to be armed. You will find after the war certain people will again become isolationists and therefore our foreign policy with the rest of the empire should be right plus might is right. Whether or not we shall have that remains to be seen. I hope we shall not help these people to go up to Geneva near Orillia. They should take a holiday this year. I do not know v7hy a fine county like Sirncoe has to have these pacifists, isolationists and others. They are the most motley pacifist collection of people I have ever seen. All they do there is talk international pacifism and if they have their w'ay we will have another war. Some of them are all right, but most of them were-wrong during the pre-war days and have been wrong on foreign policy for twenty-two years.
I believe it is only fair to say that this country in the twenty years between the two wars was the chief drifter from empire policy
Supply-External Affairs

In the imperial conference of 1937 when these matters came up we said we had no commitments; parliament would decide. We were asked about a shipping policy, an empire shipping policy. The Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong, as I have not the book with me, but it was said we had no commitments, that parliament would decide. I do not quarrel with that although I personally object to that policy. There was nothing new about it. Other countries were doing the same as to disarmament as Canada. It was felt there would be no more wars, therefore it was not necessary to have any more navies, armies or air force. What happened? We threw away our defences as well as our friends and did not see a new war coming.
I was glad to read the remarks made by Mr. Churchill the other day in connection with foreign affairs. History will show that Mr. Chamberlain was one of England's greatest men. The same applies to the whole Chamberlain family. A Munich was necessary because neither Britain nor France singly or collectively were ready for war and were no match for Germany. We heard statements in room 16 the other day about the utter lack of any defences or preparations of the mother country. Had it not been for Munich and the one year's respite, the empire would have gone, Britain would have lost the war and Hitler would have been in London in no time. Therefore we should pay tribute to the mother country for what it has done to save us in this country after Dunkirk, and also what it has done in connection with protection on the Atlantic and on the Pacific.
The keystone of the policy should be that no British territory shall be handed over to any international control. The United States will not give away any territory. They will not give away Alaska, the Panama canal or any other part of their territory. Some people want Bermuda to be taken away from the empire. Others want Russia to hand over Wrangel island. As part of the British empire our policy should be to back up Great Britain and the other dominions to the extent that the empire shall not be liquidated. Are we going to support a policy of throwing away the people in the colonies of the empire, people who have stood by the empire in its darkest days, because some other power wants to grab them?
I believe the people of this country are overwhelmingly behind the people of the mother country. They are anxious to see the right thing done at the peace conference so that the empire does not go by default.
In view of the commitments which are proposed I am pleased to see that Canada has so
[Mr Church.]
far kept out of lease-lend entanglements because of the grave dangers that lie ahead after the war. Owing to disarmament the empire has had to give bases fsorn Newfoundland to British Guiana to the United States in return for some fifty-six old destroyers, many of which were obsolete. Many of them have had to return to Annapolis for repairs. It was a most unfortunate .position for the people of the countries concerned and the dominions to be placed in. For the last one hundred years certain people have wanted the territory to which I have referred. Because of the lease-lend provisions it will be difficult at the peace conference to settle these empire matters. These bases have been leased for ninety-nine years, which is practically freehold.
Last Sunday there was held in Toronto a glorious fourth of July service at St. Paul's Anglican church, Toronto. The Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition were invited to be present, but unfortunately they could not be there. At that service a stone was presented to St. Paul's, Toronto, by the Bishop of Maryland. Speaking of our relations with the United States, Bishop Renison said:
There is an unwritten bond between the peoples of the United States of America and those who live in the far-flung British empire. It is not true that the British, or even the English, are of one blood. Their various flexible types, ideas and originality bear witness to the mingling, through their long history, of the Anglo-Saxons, the Celts, the Romans and the Normans. The same thing is more apparently true concerning Americans. Some one asked whether there was a special prayer for Americans in the old English Prayer Book and the answer was: "You can find it in the petition for all sorts and conditions of men." But a wise Englishman happily replied: "That petition was made for the English and it fits them."
Speaking generally, we have the same history; we come from the same stock; we have the same heroes between the 10th and 18th centuries. Long before there was any thought of a formal alliance of the English-speaking peoples, there was a mystic tie which united them in spite of themselves and without their knowledge.
We are all influenced by our history. In that glorious eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews you can find the honour roll of the people of Israel. It comes as a surprise to us to learn that the old prophets did not hesitate to speak to their people of the glorious deeds of their ancestors with a religious intensity. We too easily take it for granted that we must look to the Sacred Canon alone for our inspiration and comfort in these days of world destiny. If we could reincarnate the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he would ask us to turn our eyes to the glorious history of God's dealing for a thousand years. We can image the writer making such verses as these:
By faith. Alfred the Great gathered the scattered tribes of Albion in the nine century, and laid the foundation of the English nation.

Supply-External Affairs
By faith, Edward the Confessor builded Westminster Abbey, to be a shrine forever in lands not yet discovered.
By faith, John Wycliffe translated the Word of God from a dead language into a living tongue.
By faith, Drake and Raleigh sailed the uncharted seas and carried the soul of England to distant parts of the world.
By faith, John Milton w'rote of Paradise Lost, and, when he was blind, sang of the city where they need no candle, neither light of the sun.
By faith, John Hampden resisted a tyrant king and died for liberty on Chalgrove Field.
By faith, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and saved the Union; hopeful in disaster, in victory he was merciful, and with charity toward all and hatred toward none he strove to bind up his nation's wounds. In dying, he joined the Immortals.
By faith, Thomas Edison searched for the ifts which God had hidden for men to find; e made the deaf to hear; he made his country a family; and to those who since the beginning of life on this planet had nightly sat in darkness he turned their night into day.
He then speaks of Shakespeare, and continues ;
In Lincoln in Chicago there is a statute to the greatest man that England ever produced. He was not a soldier, but a poet. Here is the inscription:
"He was not for an age, but for all time, our many-minded Shakespeare." . . .
The Niagara river is a parable of the story of the English-speaking people. It is the dividing line between the British empire and America. The waters coming from the great inland seas are compressed into the swift rapids of the Niagara river-a symbol of the early difficulties and misunderstandings of the 18th century. Then we come to the great cataract, which stands for the revolution and the separate destiny of the two English-speaking nations. Below there is the whirlpool and the gorge of the 19th century, with alternate rapids and still water succeeding each other; and then the river emerges into lake Ontario, and beyond that it flows through the great river of _ the St. Lawrence, ever wider and deeper, until it reaches the ocean.
Such is the story of our people.
The last war produced some great soldiers who have had a lot to do with the destiny of this country. I was at a service the Sunday before last for the Canadian corps and the Canadian legion in Riverdale park in my constituency, and all soldiers of the Toronto district. A great sermon was preached by the chaplain of the Queen's Own regiment. It was preached by a friend of the present Prime Minister, a friend of the Leader of the Opposition, and of the other leaders in the house. I refer to Lieutenant-Colonel the Right Reverend Canon H. F. D. Woodcock, canon of the Church of England, rector of Christ Church, Toronto. He spoke as a patriot about our empire, and asked that he might not be considered narrow or selfish if he were to
speak about the empire's cause rather than the united nations' cause. The Globe and Mail newspaper article states:
He pointed out that the empire's cause is humanity's cause.
"We are gratified that we have such powerful allies" he said, and expressed the hope that the ties with the allies, the United States, China, Russia, might grow even stronger. And while some might ask, "Where would we be to-day without our allies?" He reminded his audience that after all it was the motherland who had "taken the deadly thrust in her heart, but did not die."
"I make a plea" he said, "for the strengthening of the imperial ties, because I believe no separate existence, however splendid, can compare with that which we now enjoy as joint heirs with the people of the motherland, of all the glorious traditions of her past, and joint partakers with them of the world prestige and power which that present partnership affords.
"Nationalism is not going to be abolished by this war" the speaker declared. "It is as natural to mankind as family life. But nationalism must not be exclusive. You cannot reconcile universal industrialization and exclusive nationalism."
And that is right. Let me say those who are planning for the world should take notice of those words. But let us not forget that the United States and Russia entered this war because they were attacked. Great Britain, the mother country, did not enter the war because she was attacked. She entered it because of the pledge she had made to Poland. She will be known as the good Samaritan of the nations. And she bore the brunt of the war for two years, and bore it alone.
Before the closing of the session some resolution ought to be passed, voicing our thanks to our troops. In the British House of Lords a similar resolution was passed on May 19, in the name of Viscount Cranborne. These were his words:
It will, His Majesty's government have felt, be the desire of parliament to record by a formal resolution its thanks to those who have contributed to this noble success. This is not the first occasion when parliament has voted a resolution of thanks to His Majesty's fighting forces. There are other famous precedents; after the battle of the Nile, after the battle of Trafalgar, after the battle of Waterloo, after the Indian Mutiny. Those are glorious names in our history. They will be remembered so long as Britain remains a nation. They will be passed down from father to son, long after we are dead, buried or forgotten. And so I believe will it be with this battle. This great struggle in which we are engaged is not yet over. Germany, Italy and Japan are not yet beaten. The road that we have yet to travel may be long and stony. But whatever trials and sacrifices lie before us we are, I hope and believe, through the mists of war beginning to see the end, and when Hitler and Hitlerism is an evil memory of the past, the tale of this great victory that
Supply-External Affairs

has Been won in Africa by free men for the cause of freedom will be handed down as an example and an inspiration to our children and our children's children.
I believe the time has arrived when the Prime Minister, who has a very wide knowledge of foreign affairs, and is a more or less learned man in connection with this work, should prepare a white paper with respect to our relations with that glorious country, France. That is the country with which we were allied in the first great war. That is the country with which we fought side by side in that war. I should like to see prepared a white paper which would clarify the situation as to North Africa, and in fact clarify our whole foreign affairs position. I do not believe in referring these matters to a committee on industrial and international relations. I believe it would be better if we had a plan under which we could ask questions every few days, when the orders of the day are called. That would surely be better, because we would discuss matters as they develop, and avoid long debates of this kind.
I believe the time has come when the people of Canada should be taken more into the confidence of the government. I pleaded for this on March 21, 1939, before the war broke out, upon which occasion I called the attention of the house to what Mr. Chamberlain had said. He pointed o.ut that .the people should be given the truth and the facts. I say they should ,be given .the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with respect to what is going on>
in connection with our foreign policy and this war, and they should be told what happened in the period of years between the two great wans. They should be given all that information. I do not believe we would have had a second world war if the people of the mother country and in allied countries had known the truth, the true state of affairs in respect of Germany, if they had known the truth about rearmament, and all that kind of thing.
On March 21, 1939 I' urged that the people should be given the facts, because if they were not allowed to have the truth we would be embarking on a course fraught with great danger. I say the time has come when we should have before us a white paper setting out the details of what has happened in North Africa, in connection with General Giraud and General de Gaulle, and all that kind of thing. There has been a great deal of criticism of this in the British House of Commons, and outside that House of Commons in the British press and also in Canada to the real facts about France. I refer particularly to the Yorkshire Post, the Manchester
IMr. Church.]
Guardian and many other newspapers over there. The people of Canada have the right to have this information. I believe it would be a good thing if the Prime Minister would consider [preparing a white paper along these lines.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscoua-ta): Mr. Chairman, in the first place I wish to reassure the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) that what I have to say will heLp him spend a quiet and restful weekend. I do not think the statute of Westminster means much,. I have it in my hand. It is divided into two parts, in the same fashion as any other piece of legislation. The first part is the preamble, and the second is the enacting portion, or the part that has the force of law.
The preamble contains some instructions which may refer to some understandings or agreements between the governments of the dominions, and the government of the United Kingdom, but it does not change in any way the status of the dominion. Let us consider them one after the other. The first paragraph of the preamble makes reference to past imperial conferences of 1928 and 1930. Then the second paragraph of the preamble contains these words:
The crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations.
This has not been enacted anywhere else than in our own constitution. It is a consideration which is true. I admit that the crown is binding all the dominions together. Then it goes on to say:
As they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
That is true. But we passed some legislation regarding the succession to the throne, and it was copied from the British act. It was a copy of what was passed at Westminster.
A great fuss was made to the effect that since the statute of Westminster His Excellency the Governor General is the direct representative of His Majesty the King. Before that he also represented the British government. We have heard some champions of autonomy declare in this country respecting the victory we have won, that His Excellency the Governor General represents only the King. What happened afterwards was that a British high com-

Supply-External Affairs
missioner was appointed in Canada, representing the British government. What difference is there between the governor general representing both the king and the British government, as obtained before, and the present condition where the governor general represents only the king and the British high commissioner represents the British government?
I should like to summarize later on a few of the provisions that are contained in the enacting part of the statute. Paragraph four of the preamble says:
And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said Conferences that a law be made and enacted in due form by authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
That is very important. I will repeat it:
And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said Conferences that a law' 'be made and enacted in due form by authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
That is true; I admit it, and that is why I contend that what is mentioned in the preamble is part of this statute, but not of the enacting part of the statute. The preamble goes on:
And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland have severally requested-
It was asked for by the dominions.
-and consented to the submission of a measure to the parliament of the United Kingdom for making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is hereafter in this act contained;
That is, matters such as I have mentioned. But it is not what I have already mentioned which counts in the statute of Westminster, although it does refer to some understanding between the various governments. What does count is what has been decided by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords at Westminster with the approval of his majesty. The preamble concludes:
Now, therefore, be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, as follows.
What follows is the law, and it is not what was there before. There may have been some understanding between the various dominions with regard to such questions as the succession to the throne and matters of that kind, which have been adhered to by the British government but have not been mentioned in
our constitution, the British North America Act. No change can be made to the British North America Act except by legislation at Westminster. There may be some argument regarding the new state of things that has subsequently developed which could be settled by conferences between the British government and the governments of the dominions; but so far as our constitution is concerned, it is an act of the parliament at Westminster and can be changed only by the parliament at Westminster. It is like a municipal by-law which can be amended only by another by-law and not by a resolution of the municipal council.
I never believed in the pompous designation of "dominion". It is pompous. It was something to satisfy the pride of colonials. Either Canada is a realm, as his majesty described it in speaking to the senate, and the record of that statement is also contained in our own Hansard, or we are not a dominion but just a colony.
There is no definition of a dominion in the statute of Westminster. For a definition we have to go to a book that belongs to the house and is put on the Clerk's table for our perusal. It is called "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" and it is for the Clerk's table. When there is no definition of a word in the interpretation section of a statute we have to seek for its meaning in the dictionary, not a common dictionary, but the dictionary on the Clerk's table for the use of Mr. Speaker or the chairman of the committee of the whole house when we are sitting in committee. Now what do we find in the Oxford dictionary, for use at the table of the House of Commons? I .find this definition of "dominion":
Dominion. (Dominion of Canada, name given to Canadian colonies united 1867).
That is what the dictionary says. Therefore we cannot pretend to be anything more than a colony. It is precisely because some British lord was afraid of what the effect might be in the United States if Canada were called a kingdom that Canada was given the pompous, I repeat, and false name of a dominion.
The first section of this act reads:
In this act the expression "dominion" means any of the following dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwrealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.
It is precisely because some of the other dominions, especially Australia, South Africa and Ireland objected, not to the definition but to the meaning of the designation "dominion", that these countries are called the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State. They objected to
Supply-External Affairs

the word "dominion" because it was a pompous designation for a colony. We should not go on stilts, Mr. Chairman, when we discuss external affairs and our status. There are some people, you know, who climb on stilts ,to appear greater than they are, and then after the speech is made, they drop down to earth again and become human beings. I now quote section 2 of the statute of Westminster:
(1)	The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not aply to any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion.
(2)	No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament . of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future act of parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such act, and the powers of the parliament of a dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the dominion.
In other words, the statute of Westminster repeals the Colonial. Laws Validity Act of 1865. It means that since 1931 if our legislation is in conflict with that of Great Britain it will be in force just the same. Two or three years ago, in my weekly column in a Montreal daily, I said it would be very interesting to have a check-up made of each statute passed foy our parliament and by each legislature of this country from the time of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, until the passing of the statute of Westminster, 1931, and to compare each of our laws, both federal and provincial with each of the British statutes to see whether there was not some infringement somewhere. But nobody saw the joke. Moreover, I suggested that two senile judges who had been superannuated should start the work; they would have had to live as long as Methuselah to complete it.
Lett us take note of section 7:
(1)	Nothing in this aot shall be deemed to apply bo the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
Therefore, sir, the statute of Westminster does not touch or change our constitution, the British North America Act, which remains the same. Then subsection 2:
(2)	The provisions of section two of this act shall^ extend to law's made foy any of the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces.
Which means that the Colonial Laws Validity Act applies not only to dominion acts but also to provincial acts. Then subsection 3:
(3)	The powers conferred by this aot upon the parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the provinces shall he restricted to the enactment of law's in relation to matters
fMr, Pouliot.l
w'ithin the competence of the parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the provinces respectively.	"
There is something extraordinary about section 3, which reads thus:
3.	It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of a dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.
Yes, sir, that is very fine; but what is the use of having it when on the other hand the disallowance provisions of the British North America Act are left there, in virtue of which our legislation is sent to Westminster and the British government has two years to disallow our legislation? What freedom do we have now? Or, if "freedom" is a rather stronger expression than I intended, I will use the word "autonomy".
4.	No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this aot shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion, unless it _is^ expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof.
That is fair. But it is important to note what is repeated in the two subsections of section 2 and also in section 4-and this is why there was something serious in my suggestion about the judges. All the legislation which has been passed by our parliament from 1865 to 1931 and by our provinces from the date of their creation until 1931 is null and void, and remains null and void notwithstanding the statute of Westminster if it comes in conflict with any British law. We know nothing of the past; a check-up should be made. I say that very seriously, because the statute of Westminster had no retroactive effect on the matter.
5.	Without prejudice to the generality of .the foregoing provisions of this act, sections seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Aot 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the parliament of a dominion.
6.	Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this aot, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, (which requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section seven of that aot as requires the approval of His Majesty in Council to any rules of court for regulating the practice and procedure of a colonial court of admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any dominion as from the commencement of this aot.
The only difference between a so-called dominion and a colony is this, which we find in section 5, "Powers of dominion parliaments in relation to merchant shipping." I have read it. Afterwards there are sections which refer to dominions other than ours.

Supply-External Affairs
The matter was discussed at full length on June 30, 1931. I have not time to read this debate, but to students of parliamentary history and constitutional law I say, if you desire to know the views expressed on that occasion by Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lapointe and Mr. Ralston, you have only to go to Hansard. The matter was discussed on other occasions, especially on March 10, 1939. I tell you that I find that the statute of Westminster is just a kind of fictitious propaganda, the instrument of a sort of amphibious gentleman, a labour lord-I cannot conceive of labour lords-Lord Passfield, better known as Sidney Webb.
In the first place I find that the name "statute of Westminster" is the summit of absurdity to designate one statute in particular. I had it in mind to put a question on the order paper. "Besides the two 'statutes of Westminster' passed in the years 1275 and 1285, 18 Edward I, chapter 1, and the 'Statute of Westminster' 1931, 22 George V., chapter 4, were there other statutes of Westminster? If so, what are they, and how many were passed between 18 Edward I and 22 George V., during several centuries?" All enactments from Westminster are statutes of Westminster; why pick out this one and call it the statute of Westminster? "We will give you freedom; we will give you autonomy." But we find that it is very much restricted. I have heard some young men talk about the autonomy of this country; they say, "The statute of Westminster has put it in force." But it means nothing, or practically nothing; it is just fictitious propaganda to give the inhabitants of the dominions the impression that they are always walking on stilts and that they are much greater than they are.
On March 10, 1939, there was a debate on the Gariepy bill, reported at pages 1782-4 of Hansard. Mr. Gariepy was then member for Three Rivers, and the object of his bill was to establish the anniversary of the statute of Westminster as a statutory'holiday. That was not enacted. On that occasion the late Mr. Lapointe spoke. He said:
It is the bond that binds together the various parts of the commonwealth under the same crown.
I do not believe that. I believe that the bond that unites all parts of the British empire is the British crown, and I do not see how the statute of Westminster could be substituted for the crown in uniting the various parts of the British empire or the British commonwealth, or whatever name you choose to give it.
Freedom is the cement that binds all these nations together .... The Statute of Westminster is a great step but it is not as final for Canada as it has been for most of the other
dominions because of certain things which prevented complete nationhood, in spite of the fact that those obstacles are of our own will, are there because we want them to be there.
These obstacles exist because we want them to exist, and if we are not autonomous it is because we do not want to be autonomous. He is referring to the amendment to the constitution.
First . . . how can it be accepted in international law that we are a fully sovereign nation when we have to resort to the parliament of another country to effect changes in our constitutional structure?
I fully agree with that. Now with regard
to the privy council:
Litigants from Canada must go to the mother country to get a final decision in Canadian cases.
I would be in favour of appeals to the privy council if the members of that tribunal were not also politicians, because they belong to the House of Lords. If the privy council were completely independent of politics, I would be for it. I would be for the continuation of our system, for a very simple reason. Everybody speaks of the independence of.judges. Judges should be like Caesar's wife, above every reproach. I have no objection to having a case decided in London any more than having international settlements made at Geneva. How can men who went to Geneva or to the Hague in Holland for the settlement of their disputes object to decisions being given by the privy council in London? I am opposed to it because those judges are politicians; they belong to the House of Lords. Otherwise they would be fully qualified to act as our final judges, and the question of cost is nothing, because there is so much provided for the office of the Canadian high commissioner in London that it would be possible to 'engage a couple of solicitors in London at $10,000 a year to submit all cases to the privy council.
We cannot say that we have complete equality of status and full sovereignty until we have a Canadian flag.
It is true that a flag is a symbol of sovereignty, but it must mean something. In my part of the country, when the framework of a building is finished, the custom and the tradition is to put the head of a pine tree on top, and that indicates to all those who pass by that, although the building is not completed, the framework
is.	But how can we put a flag in the air, like castles in Spain, when there is nothing there to support it? Only sovereign nations can have a flag. A flag must mean something, because if it means nothing, if it does not mean autonomy, I do not see why we should have
it.	That is my humble view. There must be a meaning to it, and so long as there is no
Supply-External Affairs

meaning we cannot have our flag. It is not a question of not being patriotic or being a good Canadian. I find that we have enough illusions with regard to the statute of Westminster and it is time to put a stop to them and to take things as they are. What would be of greater importance for us than having a flag would be to consider each piece of legislation in a truly Canadian spirit. Our legislation should have Canadian inspiration and not inspiration from outside. It would be much better to start at the bottom and then gradually climb to the top. Mr. Lapointe then went on to say:
The three matters I have mentioned will have to be dealt with and definitely solved before we can say that we are like the other dominions which have all done so.
They themselves, however, were subject to the illusion of autonomy in their constitutions. It was said that they could amend the constitutions themselves, but in each constitution there was provision for the disallowance of their legislation at Westminster. Where wouldl they go? If their amendment to their constitution should happen to displease Westminster, the British government can disallow it at any time within two years. The only country where that does not prevail is Eire.
Mr. Lapointe also spoke on March 31, 1939, on the question of neutrality with reference to the subject of a foreign policy. He is reported at page 2466 of Hansard. He spoke first of a common national status. We have no Canadian citizenship, and Canadian citizenship should come before the flag. Second, he referred to the use of the diplomatic and consular functions of Britain. I did not agree with the Prime Minister when he said that the new Canadian consul general in New York should work in close cooperation with the British officials over there. We may be in conflict with regard to trade and business, but conflict in regard to trade is emulation, not war, and the duty of the consul general in New York is not to receive instructions from the British ambassador or the British consul general, but to take instructions, from this government only, for the best interests of the country.
The third point to which Mr. Lapointe referred! was the foreign enlistment act; the fourth, the British preference, and the fifth, shipping legislation.
At the special session of 1939 he mentioned these matters and he is reported at page 66 of Hansard. What he said was this, in effect. For all these reasons, it is impossible for this country to be neutral. It shows also that we are not autonomous. And what I complain of is that this country is described as autonomous when it is not. I am making an argument now,
[Mr Pouliot.]
and I do not say to the imperialists that it is better to be autonomous than not to be, because I want them to have a restful weekend. But so long as we are not autonomous and so long as our legislation can be disallowed within two years by the British government, I do not see how we can say that we are free and are not under guardianship, and that we should have a flag. That flag should be at half-mast.
There are some other things, but I should like to see this country autonomous in fact. I mean by that, through legislation, as opposed to the many eloquent words that we hear from so many lips. In our national acts we should always proceed with the first thought for the interests of this country. In the second place we should not feel too much impressed by outsiders who' come here. At the present time some of our statesmen seem to have 'an unfortunate inferiority complex when outsiders are concerned. They consider that they are much better than Canadians simply because they come from outside the country. I am referring particularly to certain experts who have come here from Great Britain, the United States or other places.
Then there is another consideration, which was so well expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), about our taking part in the pan-American union. Most of us were bom in this country, and many of those who were not born here have become real Canadians; they want to make this country their own for themselves and for those who will come after them. All realize that the future of the world .will be mostly on this continent; I mean in the two Americas. I do not know how it will be taken, but I have a suggestion to make. I suggest that the motto of each part of the British empire, at least the colonies that are called dominions, should be the French motto of, "liberte, egalite, fraternite." By liberty I mean autonomy in legislation under the British crown. What fraternity do we practise with the other dominions? There is one dominion which has been given the cold shoulder.
I do not intend to argue this point, but when the war is over it will be over for the neutrals as well as for those who have been at war. In my humble opinion the duty of Canada, which has been doing so much for other countries, immediately after the w$r will be to do everything possible for Ireland, not only for Eire but for Northern Ireland as well. Help should be given to this dominion because they are the closest to us; they are between us and England and Scotland.


An hon. MEMBER:: Geographically.

Supply-External Affairs


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly; that is what I meant. On account of financial difficulties and other matters Ireland has suffered from poverty. If help is to come from this side of the Atlantic, it should come from Canada in the first place. I do not intend to discuss the war situation because a resume was given this afternoon by the Prime Minister, and I do not want to take up too much time. But I do want to burst the balloon of the statute of Westminster. It is very dangerous to give some people the impression that they have rights that they may claim when in fact they have none. If some members differed from the government on the question of neutrality and other matters at the beginning of the war, it was by reason of the undue importance that was given to the so-ealled rights which we are supposed to have under the statute of Westminster and which are non-existent. I thank all hon. members for the kind attention they have given me. I have spoken to them as a true Canadian who- does not want his fellow citizens to be foiled any more in connection with this matter.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Chairman, I know of no more important debate that could take place in this parliament than one concerning the relationship of Canada to other parts of the empire and our foreign relations generally. I am sure that all of us were impressed to-day by the optimistic tone of the Prime Minister's speech in so far as the war situation is concerned. As he spoke I coupled his remarks with the indication he gave the other day that we in Canada, in common with other parts of the empire, are on the eve of tremendous developments on the battle fronts. The right hon. gentleman gave the warning that in the near future the blood of our own kith and kin will be shed wherever the invasion is commenced. It was not by the statute of Westminster, which merely placed in statute form the status of the component parts of this empire, nor by the Balfour declaration of 1926 that Canada gained a position of equality with other parts of the empire; it was gained by the sacrifice and service of those who gave their all in the last war, and is being maintained at this moment by the service of those who are in the armed forces in this war.
What I have to say to-day is not comprised in any set speech. Anything I have prepared has been prepared during the day and represents the results of some thought given to matters of foreign policy and our relations within the empire over a period of years.
There are few Canadians who have any illusions that this nation will be able to remain neutral or isolated or adopt an attitude of being uninterested in foreign affairs during the years to come. In spite of the speeches that one sometimes hears made, such as the one made not so long ago by a member of another house, Canadians as a whole appreciating their membership in the British empire have no desire to depart from that relationr ship. They are prepared to accept not only that relationship but the responsibility of cooperation with and assistance to other parts of the empire in the years to come. The opposition believes and I quote:
That the guarantee of freedom, security and opportunity for Canadians will be found in the strengthening of the British commonwealth, its closer association with the United States and the other allies in this war and in the application of the principles of the Atlantic charter.
Canadian unity is dependent upon the continuance of Canada as a part of the British commonwealth. One could not imagine the various races and creeds in this country, the existence of rights and of responsibilities as between those various peoples comprising Canada, in any other relationship than within the empire, bound together in the empire by a spirit of loyalty and affection to the crown.
I was disappointed that the Prime Minister did not deal with the matter, although he has made reference to it in the past. Having regard to international transportation and communications by air, and having regard to the fact that the circumference of the world has shrunk to the point where no nation is distant from any other nation to-day more than sixty hours, with the result that international non-cooperation, isolation or separatism can no longer constitute a policy for the nation, we must look forward to the postwar problems that the Prime Minister says are now engaging the attention of certain committees to the end that in the post-war development Canada as the centre of the universe in the new air maps which are being issued will take her proper place within this empire in advancing civil aviation.
Before I deal with that I wish to make a few general observations. I believe that in recent years we have learned one thing, as was so well expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) in his speech this morning. Canada can no longer take a negative foreign policy attitude. Her attitude from now on must be one of a positive nature. Our interests in foreign affairs geographically parallel those of the United States, and we
Supply-External Affairs

are bound to the crown by history and tradition. The crown symbolizes the common unity, the common purpose, the common concept of institutions based on freedom and liberty. The United States of America, as a nation friendly to us and a nation whose cooperation means so much to the empire and to Canada has many problems in common with ours. To those who say the day of annexation is here, I say they do not represent the viewpoint of the Canadian people; for on this continent there is ample room for two great nations, one a free and independent member of the British commonwealth, the other the Republic of the United States of America, joined together in close association.
The Prime Minister himself must feel a source of satisfaction in the development of the relations between Canada and the United States which has occurred during the period that he has been in public life as Prime Minister or as leader of the opposition. When we look at the development since the last war; when we look at the development since this w'ar began, we realize the changes that have taken place. I believe we must have a degree of unity in this country in connection with foreign affairs to a greater extent than in matters particularly affecting us within the nation. When one looks at the picture, Ogdensburg, Hyde Park, Casablanca and Washington, one realizes that each of those conferences has represented a milestone in the mobilization of the power of the Englishspeaking nations, not only for purposes of making war but for mutual development in times of peace, as is evidenced by the Atlantic charter.
I have already mentioned that Canada will hold a central position when this war is over. Having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister of Great Britain has said that Canada is the linchpin joining together the British commonwealth and the United States of America, to-day the air centre of the world, is it too much to hope for that when the peace conference convenes it should convene in the city of Ottawa, the centre of the world to-day on the air routes of the world and the interpreter of the will of the British people to the United States of America and also the interpreter of the United States of America to the people of Britain. However, it has not always been so. The war changed the attitude of the government of Canada, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I am not sure yet, Mr. Chairman, that we are far enough along the road to a positive policy in foreign affairs, nor have we sufficiently established our future position toward the British empire. Why have we to-day no imperial war council? Why have we to-day

no imperial war conferences? Why did Canada in the years before the war refuse to join the committee for imperial defence? If Canada had taken the attitude in 1935 and 1936, and up to the outbreak of the war, that she takes to-day; if she had let the world and the aggressor nations know then what her stand would be should war come, would the result have been different? That will always remain an enigma of history.
Canada prior to the war had refrained from participating in affairs affecting the welfare of this empire as a whole. I am referring now to a book that was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South, "The British Commonwealth at War". At page 63 I find the following:
Since the war of 1914-18 representatives of Australia and New Zealand have frequently been present at the meetings of the committee and have asked for and received advice on .their defence problems. The other dominions, such as Canada, at least in recent years, refrained for political reasons from attending meetings of the committee.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Who wrote that?


John George Diefenbaker: It is by Mr. H. Duncan Hall, of the British committee at Washington. He goes on to point out, too, in regard to an imperial war cabinet, that Mr. Churchill wants such an institution set up, and that he has asked for it. He refers to it in his book on two occasions, first at page 35 where he quotes the Prime Minister of Great Britain as saying the following on June 24, 1941:
As I have told the house, we very much desire such a conference.
And later on, at page 36 he says this:
"We have always been ready to form an imperial cabinet containing the Prime Ministers of the four dominions.' Unfortunately, he continued, it had not been possible for all of them to be present at one and the same time; ... In the last three months the Australian government, he pointed out, had been represented on the war cabinet by Sir Earle Page. The British government had now agreed to the specific requests of the Australian and New Zealand governments, that their accredited representatives should have the "right to be heard in the war cabinet in the formulation and direction of policy;" and similar facilities would be available to Canada and South Africa.
If that correctly represents the situation I would ask the Prime Minister why it is Canada adopts an attitude against becoming a member of this war cabinet in London, in order to participate in directing and controlling the war effort of the empire.
When Mr. Eden was here he was asked a question regarding the matter of a war cabinet,

Supply-External Affairs
or a war council, and the following report of the interview appeared in the Toronto Star as follows:
Questioned as to the advisability of an empire war council, a move which Premier King has opposed, Mr. Eden glanced toward the Canadian Prime Minister before he replied. Then he said: "My own direct experience is that we've got pretty good' machinery for integration of our war effort.
Then, these are the pertinent words:
Of course, if it can be improved, that would be all the better.
Then he turned, smiling .to Mr. King and joked: "I think I did pretty well on that one, don't you?" The Canadian Premier nodded approval.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend mean to say that Mr. Eden was overawed in making his statement?


John George Diefenbaker: I say the inference is that there would be a better cooperation among the various component parts of the empire if such a cabinet were in fact set up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not agree that such is the inference at all.


John George Diefenbaker: That is my conclusion; and I point out, too, that throughout the period from 1925 on, Canada has taken the attitude of non-participation in these conferences, and has taken the stand that she ought not actively to participate in giving counsel and advice.
But it is said that these things are changed now. The question I ask is this: Are they changed? Only recently an article published on March 18, 1943, by Mr. Chester Bloom, Washington correspondent, said this in part:
Much of the readiness with which the dominions have followed the mother country's lead, however, has been due to the dire and immediate peril with which Hitler threatened the whole civilized world. Now that it begins to be clear that Germany cannot win the war, no matter how long the nazis may prolong it, and how much blood and treasure must yet be expended, the British statesmen are beginning to feel the lack of some unified British commonwealth agreement on international policy.
It is a fact that, irrespective of the visits from time to time of representatives of Canada and other parts of the empire, and despite the communications which no doubt take place several times a day, nevertheless no relationship equals that of a conference, when men put their feet under the table together, and discuss affairs together.
That is why I again bring to the Prime Minister's attention representations we have made before that Canada now, if only for the psychological effect on our people, and the people of the empire as a whole, should agree
to the setting up of that council, and to the sending of representatives to Great Britain, or wherever else the council may be convened.
In the last war there were delays in setting up the imperial war council. I believe the first imperial war council did not meet until the spring of 1917, at the same time as the imperial conference of that year. There were delays. But a reading of Sir Robert Borden's memoirs leads to one conclusion, and that is that when the time was darkest, when the submarine menace was worst, and when these statesmen came from all parts of the empire to Great Britain the effect of the Canadian troops overseas and on the people of Great Britain was such that it resulted in a greater determination, a great incentive to fight the war to victory.
The Prime Minister referred to this matter himself on February 17, 1941, when he said, as reported at page 812 of Hansard:
Direct consultations have been and may continue to be necessary from time to time. They, however, are likely to be most required concerning aspects of the common war effort which necessitate detailed inquiry. Five members of the present government have already visited the United Kingdom since the outbreak of the war. Their visits have been of the greatest assistance to the government in coordinating our war effort with the war effort of the United Kingdom.
That may be true. Those visits coordinated the war effort. If they had that beneficial result, would there not also be a vastly greater beneficial result if to-morrow morning it were announced that we in Canada are going to join the other parts of the empire in what might be called a victory gathering of an imperial war cabinet, and that we were to be represented by Canada's own Prime Minister?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I
will now summarize what I was saying before the recess. I was making a plea for greater collaboration with the other nations of the empire through the formation of an imperial war cabinet in order to unite more strongly the peoples of the empire. While it might be said that as a result of the developments of science and of scientific means of communication, the prime ministers of the various parts of the empire are enabled to communicate with one another and thereby make unnecessary the convening of a war cabinet, I
Supply-External Affairs

would point out that the human touch is lacking in these communications. Churchill and Roosevelt having the same oportunities to use modern means of communication for getting in touch with each other nevertheless avail themselves of personal meeting in the interest of their respective countries.
I pass now for a moment to our relationship with the United States of America. Recently I had the privilege of being present in Ottawa when members of the various parliaments of the empire met informally with members of the United States congress, and there for the first time I learned how important it was to have such an opportunity of getting together and of ascertaining through an interchange of ideas that, after all, our problems at the present time bear a striking similarity to one another. If there is one thing more important than another to-day it is this, that anything that may cause cleavages between Canada and the United States must be avoided, that frankness should characterize all our relations and that a free exchange of ideas is the finest means known to avoid suspicion arising.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister with a view to getting an answer thereon the situation prevailing today not only along the Alaska highway but in other parts of this dominion where representatives of the United States, in a community of interest with us, are stationed with a view to the improvement of the defences i of our country and of North America as a whole. Last year I had an opportunity of visiting the Alaska highway and of being in the town of White Horse and there meeting with the troops of the United States of America. I can say this, that I have never seen a finer body of men than these troops representing the United States-men in a foreign land and yet at all times conducting themselves in a way that brings credit to themselves and to the nation they represent. As a result of their being in Canada a reference was recently made to the supreme court with regard to their liability to Canadian law. I am not going to refer to that matter because it is now being considered by the court, except to say that the court has been asked for an opinion on a question which reads as follows:
Are members of the military or naval forces of the United States of America who are present in Canada with the consent of the government of Canada for purposes of military operations in connection with or related to the state of war now existing exempt from criminal proceedings prosecuted in Canadian criminal courts and, if so, to what extent and in what circumstances ?

The stand taken by the United States is that their troops in our country are not subject to the criminal law. There is, however, another matter which I think requires interpretation from the Minister for External Affairs, namely, in connection with a United States order that was issued on June 7, 1943. It is singularly of interest that this order should have been made, and I want to ask whether or not it applies to Canadians or British subjects who are employed by contractors in connection with work on the Alaska highway. I quote:
Paragraph 1 of Northwest Service Command General Orders No. 23, dated June 7, 1943, subject: _ ''United States military jurisdiction over civilians in Northwest Service Command" is quoted for the information of all concerned: "Regardless of citizenship, civilian employees of the United States government, or of contractors, working under and in physical proximity to the United States army, including those United States citizens in the above categories discharged from their employment who are awaiting transportation to the United States, are subject to military law and discipline under Article of War 2 (d)."
Does that mean that Canadians who are working for contractors under or in proximity to the United States army in Canada are subject only to military law? That is a matter which I think should be clarified. It has been brought to my attention by civilians so employed, and creates a striking situation in view of the attitude taken by the Prime Minister respecting Britain's right to operate air training schools on Canadian soil. It is true that was before the war, on July 1, 193S. I think it merits an interpretation by the Prime Minister and also an explanation of the circumstances under which it was brought into effect.
There was one matter with which the Prime Minister did not deal, and in the few moments at my disposal I intend to deal with it. He stated that committees had been set up for the purpose of considering postwar problems. One of the main problems affecting Canada as a member of the British empire, and by itself, and also our relations with the united nations is the question of post-war aviation. In to-day's press is a dispatch from Washington, July 8, reading as follows:
Discussions among British commonwealth countries on the broad subject of post-war aviation are being proposed by the British government, it was reported here to-day.
The meeting, likely to be held in London, would precede any aviation conference among the united nations. For some time it has been reported here that plans were under way to hold informal discussions soon-probably in Ottawa-among	representatives of Canada,
Britain, the United States and perhaps Russia

Supply-External Affairs
and China. However, anj plans to this effect may have to be modified if the London conference is held.
As yet we in, ithis parliament have had no information with regard to this meeting. On April 2 the Prime Minister made a statement on the subject, wherein he stated in part as follows, as reported in Hansard, at page 1777:
The problems of international air transport are, of course, immense and cannot be solved by one country. We are determined, however, that our influence on the course of events will be in the direction of international cooperation and collaboration. The Canadian government is in complete agreement with the United Kingdom government that "some form of international collaboration will be essential if the air is to be developed in the interests of mankind as a whole, trade served, international understanding fostered and international security gained."
A study of evamts following the treaty of Versailles and at the time of the treaty leads one to believe that many of the difficulties which took place among the then allied nations would have been avoided had there been conferences prior to the peace treaty and during the progress of the war. Aviation is one of the most outstanding problems affecting this nation and this empire. During the last three years, in the development of the commonwealth air training scheme, Canada has become the schoolroom of the British empire in the matter of aviation. I realize that with a war on and far from ended, the main problem before us is that of the war. At the same time post-war aviation is a subject which should receive the consideration Of parliament now and not be left to be considered solely by committees set up by the ministers.
The question of post-war airways is one of major concern. There have been few agreements made by Canada with respect to air rights and air transportation, and there are none, according to a return brought down, in answer to questions I asked some time ago, on May 24, which are valid "beyond the duration of the war or a short time after, or have any effect upon the control of international air routes or the operation of international or [DOT] commercial air lines after the conclusion of the war." That is a quotation from page one of the return. The only pre-war agreement which seems to be binding on all is a multilateral agreement made on May 27, 1936, between Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland and the United Kingdom respecting transatlantic air services. A summary of that agreement was given by the then Minister of Transport on July 30, 1936, and I am not going to refer to it. Canada occupies a situation of
strategic importance in the post-war development. Prior to the war a question for consideration of several imperial conferences was the establishment of strategic naval bases. After this war a major consideration will be the establishment of strategic air bases as well. The polar projection maps show definitely that the air will be the future transportation medium in large measure after the war, and 'that the great transportation services of the future will be air-borne craft the size of which no one can now conceive.
What stand are we to take? What is our attitude to be? The matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, but I feel that the members of this house and the country at large are entitled to have information now as to what conferences are taking place and what attitude Canada will take at these conferences.
I suggest that consideration shouldl be given now, with the collaboration of the United States and the other allied nations, to the organization of a British commercial air transport line, to commence operations after the end of the war, by which a world-girdling organization will be established, with each nation within the empire retaining its own domestic routes.
When the history of this war is written it may well be that Hitler's misconception of the character of the British commonwealth was one of the great mistakes which he made. He believed that without bonds of iron binding the empire together it would fall asunder; he did not realize the fact that what binds it together is the crown and the imponderables which go with British citizenship. I am going to quote in that connection the statement of Mr. Churchill some five months before the war, when, with that prescience which has characterized his statesmanship throughout, he used these words:
Some foreigners mock at the British empire because there are no parchment bonds or hard steel shackles which compel its united action. But there are other forces far more compulsive to which the whole fabric spontaneously responds. These deep tides are flowing now. They sweep away in their flow differences of class and party. They override the vast ocean spaces which separate the dominions of the king.
I feel that if there is one thing we should do at this time it is to lay the foundations for welding together, still closer than ever before, the bonds of empire, and I know of no means whereby that can be effected to a greater extent, without antagonizing those of the united nations who to-day are engaged in the
Supply-External Affairs

common effort and crusade, than by the consideration of the development of an empire air scheme. Individual members of the empire cannot do it by themselves.
The Prime Minister has made a declaration with respect to the Trans-Canada Air Lines. He states that they will operate without opposition, that in so far as feeder routes are concerned they will be, I presume, under private initiative and control. We have to-day across Canada a vast number of airports. We have trained tens of thousands of pilots who move forward to all parts of the world in an ever-increasing stream.
We have all the facilities for a world air organization. We have men who, when the war is over, will return trained as airmen were never trained before, and in the development of an air scheme such as I suggest, employment would be given to many of these men, use would be made of our airports and facilities, and the bonds of empire would be strengthened.
The question arises, how could it be governed? We have the board of transport commissioners. We could set up a board such as that, with representatives of each of the governments affected within the empire. We cannot develop a world-girdling air institution here in Canada by ourselves and without cooperation. If we look at it from the purely narrow .point of view of expediency, Canada has too small a population to maintain her vast domestic set-up in connection with air transportation, and to maintain as well a world air system after the war. Other parts of the empire are very much in the same position. Nor could we individually maintain the necessary aircraft production or continue the operation of such a vast scheme. But together, and in unity of purpose, the nations of the empire, without antagonizing the other united nations, could maintain powerful air routes in all parts of the world, the bases now established permitting of the development and expansion of such an all-empire route.
Canada has an important place to take in the post-war period. Canada can never return to the days before the war, the days when we did not as individual Canadians interest ourselves as we ought to have done in the world about us. Canada can never return to its pre-war position after the vast expansion in industry that has taken place in this country during the war. There is no more important subject now for the post-war than a declaration from the Prime Minister setting forth the attitude that Canada will take, and giving to the other parts of this empire the promise that when this war is over, in the interests of

world trade and world peace, the air facilities of all parts of the empire will be devoted to the welfare of mankind.
I have not- endeavoured to-day to introduce anything of a partisan nature. Our foreign affairs and our attitude to the empire must, I believe, be founded upon the wishes, desires and aspirations of our people, dedicated to the end that we as an empire, when this war is over, will so gird ourselves that the new world will be free from the blights of fear, international and national.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: The hon. member for Lethbridge (M-r. Blackmore), earlier in the day, said th'at the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), by saying little, had satisfied everybody on the foreign policy of Canada. I do no.t know about everybody, but certainly one may judge by the speeches that have been rendered in the later part of the afternoon that he did not succeed in satisfying hon. members opposite. However, 1 do not believe that they represent the majority of Canada, in their view. The Prime Minister of Canada, in the views he has expressed not only to-day, but on previous occasions, has succeeded in representing that majority view batter .than anyone else in the recant history of our country.
Any one who listened to the speeches to-day, or some of them, at any rate, would wonder how Canada had a foreign policy at all or even whether there is a country -called Canada. I wish to assure my hon. friends tha-t there is a country called Canada. It is a good country; it is the country we are fighting to preserve; and yet to-day we had -the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) advancing the doctrine, which was new to me, that he -could not imagine the ra-ces of Canada, the peoples in the various divisions of Canada, getting on together in any other -relationship than within -the empire, though a little later he said tha-t Canada is the centre of the world. It is very difficult to reconcile these and other points of view exjpressed to-day.
We have had a number of interesting speeches, and there is a great deal in them with which every one -of us can agree. But I find in- some of them -curious mixtures of reality and myth. There is reality about the nature of the world we are living in, but something stops and fails to carry over the speaker to see completely the consequences of that reality. I suggest that what has stopped these speakers from, being consistent and right is a mistaken conception of the British empire, a conception which- is not in accord with reality.

Supply

External Affairs
Lest I be misunderstood in any of the views I am now going to express, let me say with the most complete sincerity that no one could more fully appreciate what the British people have done in this war. I believe that in four respects the record of Britain has been extraordinary.
In the first place they had political institutions which are perhaps their greatest gift to civilization and which even worked in the moment of crisis, in the supreme hour of trial, to replace Mr. Chamberlain by Mr. Churchill. And I may say here that as far back as 1937 I was one of the few people who pursued the unpopular course in Canada of advocating the replacement of Mr. Chamberlain by Mr. Churchill at a time when it was most difficult to advocate that course. In the second place, under Mr. Churchill's leadership the British people held out and literally saved the world. In the third place, they produced the best planes and possibly one of the greatest fighting instruments the world has ever seen in the eighth army. In the fourth place, from the low watermark of centuries in the early months of 1940 they built themselves up to heights which will be the admiration of decent people for all time.
In paying this tribute do not let it be thought for one moment that I am forgetting the contribution made to our cause by Russia, although Russia gained time as a result of the defence put up by Britain. Before that China had given us time by her bitter struggle and sacrifice for so many years.
Having said this, may I be just a little technical for a moment. The empire, properly so-called, is the United Kingdom and the colonial empire. The commonwealth is the United Kingdom and the self-governing dominions of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and whatever division Eire may be in. The nations of the commonwealth, apart from the United Kingdom, have nothing to do with the government of the empire and nothing to do with the government of each other, except in so far as there is still the vestigal remains of the lack of autonomy to which the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) referred to-day. They are there because we choose to have them. No one in Canada or elsewhere can take any pleasure from rattling the chains of subordination because, if we have ties of that kind1, we have them because we want them.
We work together when it is in our interest to do so, and it usually is. The conception which most interests Canadians is not that of the British empire vis-a-vis the world; it is of
the nations of the British commonwealth working with the world. I suggest to hon. members of this committee that in this distinction there is a considerable difference between some hon. members opposite and myself. I believe that my conception of the British commonwealth and what it means and what it can do for the world is a nobler one than theirs. I believe that mine is more in accord with reality, and with the interest and welfare of all of us. I believe it is more inspiring because it is based on the principle of freedom and on responsibility which is a correlative of freedom.
If because of ties of affection, tradition, literature and common political institutions, all symbolized in a common crown, the independent and autonomous nations of the British empire are drawn together so that they have a policy which is coincident, that is a much finer and more helpful thing than if we all had a policy which was arrived at in some other way by reason of our having only one voice, as was advocated by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). Our strength is in the freedom with which we are associated. Other nations will be more ready to work with that strength as we make them see and recognize that freedom. In that connection I differ fundamentally from the hon. member for Vancouver South. The conception I have of the British commonwealth is an association of free nations working together-


Howard Charles Green: Did I say that they were not free nations working together?


Brooke Claxton: My hon. friend suggested that they should have a common voice.


Howard Charles Green: In foreign affairs.


Brooke Claxton: Oh, yes; we are discussing foreign affairs to-night.


Howard Charles Green: You are discussing whether they are free nations at the moment.


Brooke Claxton: I am discussing the matter of having one voice, which was the phrase used by my hon. friend. The point I am making is that the way we arrive at that one voice is of fundamental importance, not only to us but to the nations of the world with whom we are associated. I suggest to my hon. friend and to this committee that the nations of the world will appreciate us and our value, and we shall have far greater influence if we can have a common voice from a consideration of our own interests rather than if we always speak with a single voice and have a single policy on every point.
The correlation of freedom is responsibility. But responsibility to whom? Obviously in

Supply-External Affairs

Canada we are not responsible to the people of South Africa, we are not responsible to the people of any other commonwealth country, we are responsible to the people of Canada. What brought us here, what brought our forefathers here, and why we aim to have our sons live here after us, is that we have an affection and devotion and loyalty to Canada.
Against this background may I consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre that there should be an imperial conference and an imperial war cabinet during the war. That has been discussed on a great many occasions in this house and elsewhere. My objections to it are twofold. In the first place, it is not practicable as a regular routine. The greatest usefulness any dominion prime minister or the Prime Minister of Great Britain can have is to lead his own nation in the fight against the aggressors, to direct the efforts of his own people. When it might be possible for Field Marshal Smuts and Mr. Fraser to go to London, it might not be possible for the Prime Minister of Canada and Mr. Curtin to go. It simply is not practicable to arrange to have an imperial war committee meet in London as a matter of regular routine throughout the war.
The first duty of the prime ministers of the commonwealth is to their own nations; they can make their greatest contribution to the common cause in their own nations. From time to time they may be able to meet with other leaders to discuss specific points, but the possibility of regular routine meetings by all of them is ruled out by the practical considerations to which I have referred.
Further, the experience of one commonwealth prime minister indicates a valid objection to the course to which the hon. member for Lake Centre has directed his evidence. I refer to Mr. Menzies who was away from his country so long that when he got back he found himself in a position in which he was defeated. It is impossible in these days of rapidly moving events and grave issues for any group of prime ministers to be out of their countries for any considerable length of time, to make decisions affecting their countries and be sure of being able to implement them on their return.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no election in Australia at that time.


Brooke Claxton: He was defeated in the
house, of course. There is no difference whatever in that. He was out of touch with his country for four or five months, and within three weeks of his return from abroad he was defeated.


John George Diefenbaker: He had a very
small majority.


Brooke Claxton: It was quite sufficient.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It looks as
if he lost it while-he was away.


Brooke Claxton: Then there is a second
important consideration; the British commonwealth at the present time has no special interest distinct from that of the other nations fighting on our side. The interest of the United States in all the affairs in which we are interested is identical with ours. Their interest is in mobilizing the utmost strength to defeat the aggressor. It is the same as ours. We have no distinct interest in the British commonwealth at this time which differentiates us from the United States with regard to doing right throughout the world or which differentiates the United Kingdom from Russia in the fight in Europe, or China from Australia, New Zealand and Canada with regard to the struggle against Japan.
I would have supported my hon. friend if he had said we need additional agencies in the united nations to combine our strength to greater advantage than has been done up to now. I believe in time it will be found necessary to work out some system of combined strategy for Europe such as has been worked out in other centres of the world. Any system of cooperation will have to involve representation in some way or another of all the forces fighting on a particular front. But running all through the statements of my hon. friends opposite, of the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for Lethbridge is, I believe, the conception of the interest of the British empire or British commonwealth as being separate and distinct from that of the interest of the rest of the world.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon.
member permit a question?
Mr. CLAXTON; Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: Is my recollection
incorrect that the Prime Minister said earlier this session that the British commonwealth of nations and the British empire are synonymous terms?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, he
did.


Brooke Claxton: I think the Prime Minister said that either one of them might be used.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.

Supply-External Affairs


Brooke Claxton: But I do not agree that they are synonymous, for the reasons which I have stated. I should remind my hon. friend that I said I was speaking technically when I described the position of the British empire.
At this moment in history it is the triumph of the members of the British Commonwealth that they have no special interest. Their interests are the same as those of other nations fighting the aggressors. If this is accepted bj7 us it means that we have a conception of the British Commonwealth which will be welcomed by all other nations. We should appreciate that when one of the British peoples refers to the other British peoples in terms of affection, the majority of the people of the world do not have the same degree of attachment to the British Commonwealth or Empire as British citizens have.
Let us look for a moment at the purpose of foreign policy. What is it? The purpose of foreign policy of any country is to pursue the interests of that country. The purpose of the foreign policy of Britain is to pursue the interests of Britain; the purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to pursue the interests of the United States; and any prime minister who did not pursue what was conceived to be the interests of his country would be turned out of office. Of course it should be made plain to the people, with the growing development of affairs, that the interest of a country is bound up with the interest of every other country. But still the purpose of any national policy and foreign policy is to serve the interest of that country. That is true of Canada as it is true of every other nation. What is the interest of Canada? It is, of course, to secure the security and prosperity of the Canadian people. We do not differ from any other country in our foreign policy; we do not differ from any of the countries with whom we are fighting as allies, to pursue security and prosperity. But when we seek to see how that is to be done we get into practical questions of some difficulty. There is one first step on which we all agree; that is, that we must win the war, and we must realize that, for us in Canada the time of greatest strain and sacrifice lies ahead. Second, we must recognize that what we are fighting for is the defeat of aggression. The sanctity of individual life. The chance to have a good life is not only our aim in war but also our aim in peace.
And we are helping to-day to make the conditions of peace. Everything we do in this or any other country is setting the framework of the post-war world. We may be sure that
72537-291J
there will be no new heaven or new earth except in so far as we make it to-day oi later by our united work. It lies in our hands to make it. It is only the part of wisdom to look ahead and try to learn from what is happening here as well as in the peculiar past to which the hon. member for Broadview referred.
The interest of the people of Canada in foreign policy is not academic. It is measured by 750,000 men in the armed forces, and by our harnessing our whole resources to defeat the enemy. It is shown in peace by the farmers in Saskatchewan, who know that the amount of money they have in their pockets will depend on world trade, world markets and world security. The war has brought out that 'the world is one. That is brought home to us by our place on the main roads of the air to Europe and Asia. It was brought home to us when five tired Canadian boys got off a plane on a summer night last year at Uplands after bombing Germany that morning. That cracked old conceptions of the world. The war has shown us that no nation is far enough away to keep out of a major war or strong enough to fight one alone. This applies to Russia and to the United States as well as to Britain; it also applies to Canada.
The hon. member for Lethbridge suggested that we should arm ourselves to the teeth in order to defend Canada. He then suggested that we should do so in conjunction with the other parts of the British commonwealth. I want to have not only the Strength of the British commonwealth at my back in the world that lies ahead; in the world that lies ahead I want to have the strength of all the nations of the world organized into a community at my back, because there is no other way to prevent aggression.


John Horne Blackmore: Would my hon. friend permit a question? We wanted to have the support of all the nations in the world in 1940, but we just did not have it. If we had all been strong, the situation would have been a far different one.


Brooke Claxton: My hon. friend has
brought up a question which would take a little time to answer. I would suggest the reason why we did not have the armed strength in 1940 and were not in a position to do in the aggressors and prevent their succeeding dates back to what happened at Geneva in 1920, 1924, 1931 and 1935. There was a long record of failures on the part of all the nations to live up to their obligations and to see their interests, to see that the only way they could avoid a war was to
Supply-External Affairs

prevent it. The only way to prevent aggression was by combining strength, just as today we are having to combine our strength in order to defeat aggression. It would be much easier to prevent aggression than it is to defeat aggression.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Would the hon. member tell us how much he would like to contribute, and in what way he would like to contribute to that strength he so admirably wishes to have at his back?


Brooke Claxton: I would contribute our full share, as we are doing in the war. I would contribute our full share, whatever it may be. And because Canada has a special place in the world I would contribute more than what seemed to be our share. I would go the full limit, because we have a greater stake in security than almost any other nation. We have a finer country and we want to preserve it. We want to preserve our way of life here.
The only way to organize strength is by collective action. Surely it is obvious that if you have collective action you have to have collective instruments to direct the use of that collective strength. We are gradually building up those instruments during the war, through the instrumentalities of the united nations. We ought to try for faster progress in this, while we are united in the common purpose of defeating the enemy. If we get the habit of cooperation during the war, and develop the machinery that will work during a war, then we gradually move into the period of peace afterwards. But unless this is done during the war, then there is less chance of doing it after. '
To-day the realities of geography establish that the world is one, that peace is indivisible, and also, as the Prime Minister said, prosperity is indivisible, too. The prosperity of every part of Canada depends upon the prosperity of every other part. We cannot have people in Ottawa, in Saint John, in Saskatchewan, prosperous, without other people in Canada being prosperous. The same applies throughout the world, to even a greater degree, because Canada has become more dependent on international trade during the war than she was even before the war. We can only support our standard of living, our national income, our prosperity-because that is what it is-if after the war conditions are secure through international action which will enable us to exchange our goods and services with other nations to about the same degree as we are doing during the war.
We can have security and prosperity internal and external, but we cannot have just security or just prosperity. And we cannot have it here

and not somewhere else. It has all to go together. I suggest that not only is that lesson taught and preached by people like Mr. Willkie in his book "One World", but that it is coming to be the common idea among all the peoples of the world. They are awaking to the reality of it. A country like Canada can make a very considerable contribution towards this end. We can make it as a member of the British commonwealth of nations, and we can make it in working with other nations. The members of the British commonwealth of nations can make a great contribution. But we cannot make so effective a contribution if we have to speak with one voice. While we should try by consultation to have a common policy, we should not have a single policy, which is quite a different thing. The difference is fundamental to the concept of the world before us, and of the British commonwealth as I have tried to describe them.
If the 'British commonwealth were always to speak with only one voice to the rest of the world, then you would have the British commonwealth set off against the yorld, and the commonwealth countries would not be able to make their separate contributions to its welfare. Unity of this kind would defeat its own end. For example, you could not then have Canada join the pan-American Union, in the way the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested. The nations of the commonwealth can have far more influence if they happen to work together as five, six or seven nations than if they are one.
And also, this idea of a single foreign policy is unworkable. Who would declare the foreign policy? I am sure no prime minister or no government in England would agree that its foreign policy was to be determined by Canada or by Australia. They would not agree to it. Their interests are too- serious to permit them to agree to it. We could not agree to it, either. But we should consult together, of course. In -consequence of that consultation and in consequence of our common traditions and common interests we may arrive at policies which are -the same. That may happen in nine cases out o-f ten, and when it does it will be -more effective than if we struck out as a solid unit.
So that I suggest to my hon. friends that it is not in the interests of the British commonwealth of nations, or any member of it, that we should seek to have a single voice in foreign policy. Everyone agrees that we should work together with members of the commonwealth and other nations just as we are doing. I do not conceive of the commonwealth as being a sort of concentration of

Supply-External Affairs
power of a collective character, such as my hon. friends seem to think it is. I think of it as a great association which has contributed. much to the world, and will contribute more. But its very lifeblood is freedom. And the very principle of freedom, which gives it its character, and which keeps us part of it, demands that we should be free to determine ou.r own policy.
Then, also, we should determine our own policy because that is the only way in which we can get support for any policy in Canada. No one could get support in Canada for a policy determined from outside of Canada. In Canada we should seek to have a policy which would lead this country to take a most active part in the affairs of the world, because that is our interest. Our interest in the affairs of the world to-day is not exceeded by that of any other country; our power is, but not our interest. The best way to get the unity of feeling among our own people, which is the necessary basis of a foreign policy, is that it should be a foreign policy which is based on Canada's interests, and appeal to Canadians as Canadians.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When the hon. member speaks about Canada's interest, does he mean self-interest?


Brooke Claxton: Of course, self-interest.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have no obligations to the rest of the world, then?


Brooke Claxton: Of course we have.
Everything I have said should show my hon. friend that we have an obligation to the rest of the world, just as the rest of the world has an obligation to us. When I speak of self-interest I naturally assume the hon. member to think I meant enlightened self-interest; because our interest is not a selfish interest; it cannot be. We are interested in a world in which small nations will be secure. We cannot secure that condition by ourselves. We can secure it only by working together with other nations, and making our full contribution toward the common pool of security and prosperity.
This concept of the relationship was described by Lionel Curtis in his book Civitas Dei, written in 1937. Mr. Curtis is no separatist, as my hon. friends know, and he says:
I am thus led to state a conclusion from which I have long shrunk. In spite of all that is said and written and of all appearances, the dominion have not as yet acquired the character of national commonwealths, and cannot acquire it until they have accepted in unequivocal terms the responsibility for peace or war. They cannot do this, nor feel they have done it, until
they have notified to the world at large that they are not involved in war till their own governments have officially declared that they are so involved.
The cabinet, parliament and electorate of a dominion which had once come to this point would begin to take an interest in world affairs to which they cannot be brought in times of peace, so long as the present conditions exist. They would cease to be screened from the hard facto by direct contact with which men learn what those facte are. They would have to provide for themselves the diplomatic machinery without which no government can follow the course of foreign affairs. They would lose the habit of mind induced by a satellite position- the habit of mind which prevents them from seeing the key position which they hold at this juncture of human history.
This statement was true in 1937 and has been proved to be true not only by the course of events since and by the participation of Canada in the war as the separate act of her i vn government authorized by her own parliament, but also by this discussion. We can only have a foreign policy which is unequivocal when we arrive at a foreign policy from considerations which are based on Canadian sentiments and Canadian interests. Among the first of those interests one would naturally say was the survival of Britain as in Canada's interest. It is important that we should recognize that we are fighting in this war because it is in Canada's interest to see the survival of Britain and ourselves rather than that we should fight automatically just because Britain is involved.
My hon. friend the member for Vancouver South suggested that there is danger of our getting a small nation complex. I must say that I do not know what a small nation complex is. But if a big power complex means that a power seeks to dominate someone else, and if a small nation complex is the opposite of that and means a desire to work together in harmony, I am all for it.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member believe that it is the destiny of Canada to be always a small nation?


Brooke Claxton: As my hon. friend knows, Canada has great possibilities of growth, but the soundest foundation for the growth of Canada is in a conception of our country which all Canadians can share. That is fundamental to our progress. In the extremes of isolation, on the one hand, and a wrong conception of Canada's relationship with the empire, on the other hand we have extremes which make it extraordinarily difficult for us to have a united country and a united policy, although the people between the two extremes undoubtedly represent the great majority of the people of this country.
Supply-External Affairs

Speaking about small powers, Sir William Beveridge writing in The Observer said this, which I think will answer my hon. friend's question:
At the end of the last war, -the aim was phrased by some as making the world safe for democracy. But democracy is a means, not an end. The aim for the nest peace can be put better: we should decide to make the world safe for small nations.
That phrase implies all that is essential. If the world is safe for small nations, it will be safe for all nations. If the world is safe for small nations, it will be an ordered world in which the rights of each nation are determined by justice and not by relative strength, as in an ordered community the unarmed citizen is safe beneath the protection of the law. If the world is safe for small nations, it will be a world in which the human spirit can blossom in all its infinite variety of national cultures and not be beaten flat into a totalitarian mould.
How can^ the world be made safe for small nations? Not by their dependence on a larger neighbour, for that destroys nationhood. Not by their own arms and not by grouping themselves with other small nations; not even the largest single nation in the world to-day can be safe by its own arms, for safety does not mean living always on the brink of war, even if one survives war. It means security

being without the fact or the constant fear of war. Security for all nations, small and great, can come only through the enthronement of impartial justice between nations and the arming of justice with decisive force for her decrees. "The scales of justice", as Mr. Winston Churchill once said, "are vain without her swcrd". Who is to supply international justice with her sword and wield it for her?
The Prime Minister ten days ago said that Canada was a world power. While Canada is still a small power in terms of military strength and population she is great in resources, enormously great in possibilities. If the hon. member for Vancouver South by his interpolation meant that those possibilities were practically unlimited, then I agree with him completely. But the one basis on which we can grow steadily toward a greater maturity, a greater strength and a greater usefulness to the world, is that we should have conceptions of our country which can be shared by all Canadians, and not just Canadians of Anglo-Saxon descent or of French descent, or other descent, but Canadians of all descents. It should be remembered that some of them cannot have the same views of our country's relationships as some of us have. We should not go to any extreme of views in one direction or the other. In the middle there is an idea of Canada as a free, independent, autonomous nation, associated with the British commonwealth and with our neighbour, the United States, with whom we have closer relations than have ever existed between any other two nations before, a Canada willing, in [Mr. Claxton.l
fact desirous of playing its full part in the affairs of the world, because there is our interest and because our interest is not in any way separated from the interests of any other nation. We have no axe to grind, nothing to gain except security and peace for ourselves and our people; but as we gain security and peace for our people we can contribute to the security and peace of other people. Any conceptions that my hon. friends opposite have of the British commonwealth or any other association must be big enough to conceive of the world gradually growing into a community, because that is what it is becoming, and the sooner we shape our ideas and our ideals and our hopes to that conception, the better it will be for ourselves and for our people.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? Some days ago he promised to make a statement with respect to the position in the Canadian northwest, and during the course of his remarks this morning he said that he would do so. He omitted to do so. I do not suggest that that was intentional at all, but I do say that the people of Canada are very much interested in that subject and would like to hear from the Prime Minister upon it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did say I would do so later.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood it was to be done later to-day. If that was not the intention, I misunderstood.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer it right away. My hon. friend asked the following question on July 9:
Will the Prime Minister make a general statement or table the agreement between Canada and the United States covering the position of the latter as to its use of or interest in the Alaska highway after the war?
The answer to that is that the exchange of notes on the Alaska highway, tabled in the House of Commons on March 18, 1942, provided that:
At the conclusion of the war that part of the highway which lies in Canada' shall become in all respects an integral part of the Canadian highway system, subject to the understanding that there shall at no time be imposed any discriminatory conditions in relation to the use of the road as between Canadian and United States civilian traffic.
Then, second, my hon. friend asked:
Will the Prime Minister make a similar statement or table the agreement as to the ownership, the interest in and use of the pipeline from the Fort Norman oil fields to the refinery at Whitehorse and in the refinery; the amount of money involved in the construction of the pipeline and the oil refinery?

Supply-External Affairs
The answer is:
Under the terms of an agreement between the Canadian and United States governments, the complete test of which cannot yet be made public for security reasons, the United States is paying the costs of the project and the Canadian government is providing sites for structures and rights of way essential to the project, and is also making oil rights available under proper regulations. The Canadian government has also agreed during the war to facilitate the entry into Canada of equipment, labour and personnel for construction and maintenance of the project, and to waive import duties, taxes, licence fees, et cetera. Royalties on oil produced under this project are also waived for the duration of the war. The United States government retains ownership of the pipeline and refinery until the end of the war. at which time they will be offered for sale, with the Canadian government being given prior right of purchase. Failing a satisfactory sale being made, the disposition of the pipeline and refinery will be referred to the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. It is impossible at this time to estimate the amount of money involved in the construction of the pipeline and refinery.
Then my hon. friend asked:
Will title to the land through which the pipeline runs be alienated to the United States or to any company, or will it remain the property of Canada?
The answer is:
Title to the land through which the pipeline runs remains in the crown in the right of Canada.
The last question was:
Will individuals or companies other than Imperial Oil have the use of the pipeline after the war?
The answer is:
Under the agreement between the two governments, the pipeline and refinery will be offered for sale at the conclusion of the war at a valuation set by two appraisers, one named by Canada and one by the United States. The Canadian government will be given the first option to purchase. If the option is not exercised within three months, the facilities may be offered for sale by public tender with the amount of the valuation as the reserve price.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank
you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While I am
on my feet I might clear up one other question. The leader of the opposition asked on June 28, when I tabled the inter-American radio agreement signed at Santiago in 1940, if the agreement had anything to do with shortwave broadcasting. I was not in a position to give an answer offhand at the moment, but the facts are as follows: the agreement deals principally with the employment of the frequencies in the band 1600 to 5000 kilocycles in a service of point to point, ship, aeronautical, police and amateur radio-communication. It does not in any way affect, nor is it
concerned with the broadcasting in Canada in either the shortwave or mediumwave band.
The committee will see why I was not able to recollect the details at the time.


Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: It has already been emphasized
that this is a very important debate. The number of subjects within the purview of the Department of External Affairs is quite extensive, and all of them are exceedingly important. Other members of this group are dealing with some of the other subjects.
I wish to confine my remarks to just one subject and, in fact, to one particular phase of that subject; I refer to the problems arising out of the refugee situation, and in particular to the terrible plight of the people of the Jewish race.
There are times, Mr. Chairman, when members of this house rise to speak because we know we are dealing with matters in which there is wide and keen public interest. I think it is only realism, as hon. members will recognize, to say quite frankly that this is a subject in which there can hardly be said to be wide public interest; rather it is a subject in which, I feel, a lead should be given to our people.
I rise to speak on this matter primarily because of humanitarian instincts which, I am sure, are shared by practically all hon. members, instincts which prompt many of us to raise our voices whenever the opportunity is afforded on behalf of people suffering untold persecution.
I should like to set the tone of my remarks and perhaps give expression to my attitude on this question by reading a few sentences from the printed copy of a broadcast given over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network last Easter Sunday by Watson Thomson:
Retribution towards the nazi criminals is certainly not enough: any pagan, any nazi storm trooper can do that thing. Upon us is a higher and a harder obligation. Not to pity the Jews, not to sentimentalize over them, not to pass resolutions about them. But to rise up and act with all the passion of an awakened human conscience, and save Jewish lives. Save them- not to send them to Eritrea or Madagascar, but to live with them ourselves, learning to say what we like and what we dislike about them as those may who desire understanding and reconciliation, learning to listen to what they have in ancient grievance against us; so that the past may be eaten up into a tolerant present and carried forward into a creative future of living together.
It might tend to shorten my remarks if I were to give a few quotations which summarize the situation with respect to Jewish
Supply-External Affairs

refugees. I should like to read a bit from a pamphlet entitled "Let My People Go," written by Victor Gollancz:
Of the 6,000,000 Jews or so who were living at the outbreak of the war in what is at present nazi-oocupied Europe, a high proportion-say between one and two million-have been deliberately murdered by the nazis and their satellites.
No discrimination has been made in favour of pregnant women, babies, children, the sick, the very old. On the contrary, discrimination, such as it is, has been in favour of men from whom an adequate last ounce can be got in German war factories.
The murders are taking the form of random shootings, mass shootings, mass electrocutions, mass poison-gassing, and transportation in conditions which inevitably involve death during the journey. This is over and above slow starvation by the allotment of hopelessly inadequate rations, or no rations at all. . . .
This policy, which has been pursued since the outbreak of the war, has been greatly speeded up during the last few months. Unless something effective is done within a very few months these six million Jews will all be dead except fifty thousand or so in the countries at present neutral and perhaps a few tens of thousands whom Hitler may find it convenient to work to the last ounce of their strength in his own war factories.
I turn now to a sentence in the broadcast given by Watson Thomson- on Easter Sunday. It is very brief, but it tells a great deal about the horrible plight of these people:
The armed guards surrounding the ghetto walls have a standard rate now of one hundred zlotys for which price they will consent to give a Jew the privilege of being shot at his own request.
I should like to call the attention of hon. members to another document which I think it would be well for everyone to read. It appears under the heading, "Starvation Over Europe." Its sub-title is, "Made in Germany." The book has been published by the Institute of Jewish Affairs, and I find in the back of it eight or ten pages of citations giving the authority for the material contained in it. The material has been collected from William Beveridge, the London Economist, the London Economic Journal, "World Economic Survey" of the League of Nations, Foreign Affairs, New York Times, New York Herald-Tribune, London Times, "Survey of Central and Eastern Europe" published by the League of Nations, "Central European Observer" published in London, and a whole host of credible documents and newspapers from all parts of the world.
This book sets out the stark fact that the nazis are making terrible use of the lessons of science with particular reference to feeding. It is pointed out that it is part of 'the German plan so to allot and apportion food among the peoples of occupied Europe that the strongest
Mr. Knowles.]
will be of course the Germans, both in Germany itself and in olher -parts of Europe; the next strongest physically will be those from whom the Germans can get work in their war factories; and so on down -the list of various races and nationalities under the control of the nazis at the present time.
I read that Hitler's scientists not only made a careful study of what had happened in Germany during the last war. They closely calculated the subtle distinctions between minimum protective diet, malnutrition produced by specific deficiencies, slow starvation caused by denial of cell-replenishing foods, and finally actual famine. Their research also taught them that over a long period certain deficiencies spell disaster in the form of national debilitation and a stunted generation. Accordingly on the basis of this knowledge and research the Germans are doing two things. On the one hand, they are seeing -to it that their own people are well fed, scientifically fed, so that they will be strong for the conflict in which they are engaged, and also for another eventuality to which I will refer in a moment. On the other hand, they are making use of the scientific knowledge which they have gained to see to it that the peoples whom they conquer are strong enough only to serve German ends, and as far as certain nationalities and races are concerned, particularly the Jews, that they pass out of the picture altogether.
I said there was another eventuality to which I would call attention, and perhaps I can do it best by quoting directly from the book:
In their ruthless logic the nazi leaders have not ignored the possibility of ultimate defeat. Should Germany be destined to fail again on the battlefield they are determined that their system of feeding and starving, as applied during the war years, shall result in a radical and permanent shift in the demographic balance of power.
The Germans, in other words, realize that they can lose and may lose this war. They are determined that if they lose it, when it is all over, their people will be physically so much stronger than the peoples of other parts of Europe that, as it were, in starting from scratch on the continent of Europe, they will have a better chance in the scramble that will ensue.
Just in passing, I should point to the lessons that are to be drawn from that situation. They tell us, of course, that we should be making the fullest use of the scientific knowledge we have to make sure that in so far as it is possible, with the foods at our command, we should have a strong people both for the war and for the post-war period. They remind

Supply-External Affairs
us, too, of the problem that will face us when the war is over-the problem of feeding millions of people on the continent of Europe. It will be a case not only of getting to them so .much bulk, as far as food is concerned, but of getting to them the right kind of food, which they are now denied, in order that they may rebuild a race whose physical condition will be seriously deteriorated. That, of course, has very wide implications for us in view of our situation as a largely agricultural country. May I give to the committee some of the statistics which have been compiled in this book. The material is set out in tables which are quite interesting, though they are certainly alarming.
First of all, on page 37 I find a table indicating the comparative meat rations allotted to the peoples of nazi-occupied Europe. The Germans of course lead with 100 per cent; Czechs, 86 per cent; Dutch, 71 per cent; Poles, in the incorporated area, 71 per cent; Lithuanians, 57 per cent; French 51 per cent; Belgians, 40 per cent; Serbs, 36 per cent; Poles in the general government area, 36 per cent; Slovenes, 29 per cent; Jews, zero. Then on page 47 there is another table giving the percentage of pre-war food received under present rations. These percentages are given in terms of calories per consumer unit. The Germans head the list with 93 per cent. The significance is that the Germans, both in Germany itself and in other parts of Europe, are getting 93 per cent of the calorie requirement of food they were receiving before the war. This is the table:
Per cent
Germans	 93
Czechs	 83
Poles, in the	incorporated	area	 78
Dutch	 70
Belgians	 66
Poles, in general	government	area ....	66
Italians	 63
Norwegians		 54
Jews	 20
On page 48 is another table which gives the proportions of German rations received by the peoples of Europe, based on the calories per person normally consumed as of January 1, 1943. This is as follows:
Per cent
Germans	  100
Czechs	 87
Poles, in the incorporated area	 81
Dutch	   80
Belgians	 65
Poles, in the general government area..	65
Finns	 64
Norwegians	 61
Italians	 55
French	 53
Greeks	 31
Jews	 21
There are several other tables in this book giving information along the same lines, and in each case the ratios are similar to those in the tables which I have given. I shall not take the time to give these in detail. One deals with the calories received in the present rations, and other tables indicate the amount of carbohydrates, proteins and fats being received by the racial and national groups under the control of the nazis at the present time. It is indeed a tragic use that is being made of scientific knowledge by the nazi people. There are many lessons contained in this information which we should heed, but I would point out in particular the plight of the Jewish people who are at the bottom of the list every time. I am not going to take time to recount stories of horror in connection with the sufferings of the Jewish people, because I do not consider that the way to move people to action. Rather we should consider the facts and figures such as I have given, and as human beings see if we cannot come to a decision as to what we are to do. I should like to refer hon. members to a memorandum submitted to the Bermuda refugee conference by the world Jewish congress. In the beginning of this memorandum reference is made to the conditions I have just placed before the committee and it goes on to say:
The nazis have never concealed their determination to destroy European Jewry. As late as March 14, 1943, Doctor Goebhels, in an interview given to foreign press .representatives, declared: "Germany is firmly convinced that the Jews are an international disease which must be exterminated in Europe."
Then on February 19, Doctor Goebbels made this further comment:
"If hostile foreign countries raise a sanctimonious protest against our anti-Semitic policy and shed hypocritical crocodile tears over our measures against Jewry, that cannot prevent us from doing what is necessary. Germany in any case has no intention of yielding to this Jewish threat, but intends rather to exercise against Jewry our prompt and, if necessary, our complete and most radical suppression."
Toward the end of the memorandum appears the following:
The warnings of retribution uttered repeatedly by the most authoritative spokesmen of the democratic world have had no deterrent effect on the enemy. There remain only two ways in which the total destruction of the Jewish population on the continent of Europe can be prevented: 1. The sending of supplies under proper safeguards to places of detention and remnants of Jewish communities which survive; and 2. To remove as many Jews as possible from nazi-oontrolled areas to places of refuge.
And again:
If the gravity of the problem is not recognized, and action not taken immediately, the

Supply-External Affairs

victory of the united nations may mean nothing to the worst victim of nazi barbarism. Dead communities cannot be restored to life.
Theii I quote from the appendix as follows:
The united nations should, without delay, take steps to designate and establish a number of sanctuaries in allied and neutral countries to accommodate substantial numbers of Hitler's victims and to serve as havens of refuge for those Jews whose release from captivity may be arranged for, or who may find their way to freedom through efforts of their own.
I was glad to note, in the Prime Minister's statement this morning that he had something to say about refugees, and that he dealt specifically with the problems facing the Jewish people. I was glad to note also a suggestion to the effect that Canada would participate fully in any programme that might be worked out as a result of the Bermuda conference or of any agreement that might be arrived at by the united nations. I suppose the question of whether or not we are doing enough as human beings is a matter of degree, perhaps I should say a matter of opinion. I do not wish to throw any cold water upon what is being done by Canada for these people and for Jewish children in particular, but I rose to place before the committee some bold and terrible facts as a means of expressing my own opinion that Canada is not doing enough.
I had hoped that when the Prime Minister got to the end of his remarks on the Bermuda conference he would have indicated some further steps which Canada would take without delay on her own initiative. In this connection I should like to quote from a note which appears on the back cover of the book from which I quoted a few minutes ago, entitled "Let My People Go." This was added to the book after it had been completed by the writer, Victor Gollancz. He refers to a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of Wednesday, January 6, written by Sir Andrew McFadyen. Sir Andrew was general secretary to the reparations commission 1922-24, and of the Dawes committee, 1925. This is what he says:
A few weeks ago a deputation to the home secretary appealed for permission for the entry of 2,000 children from Vichy, France. The request was unconditionally refused, partly on the ground that it might cause an "outburst" of anti-Semitism here. That is a slander on the British people. News has just been received that of 2,000 children, from two years of age upwards, deported from Vichy France in cattle trucks, half were dead on arrival at their destination and the rest were dying.
The point is, Mr. Chairman, that waiting to help these people in the best way that we can later on is, in the opinion of some of us. 
really not good enough in view of the fact that many of them-thousands, perhaps millions-will not be there to help. Many of them we could not help, no matter how much initiative the government or the people of this country might display. But it does seem to me, that as human beings we should do our best to provide as much sanctuary as we can for those people who can get away. I say we should do that because these people are human and deserve that consideration, and because we are human and ought to act in that way.
I intimated when I rose in my place that I realized this is not a subject of wide popular interest to the people of this country. After all, Jews are only a very small portion of our population. According to the census of 1931, they represented only 1-5 per cent of the population of Canada. We know there are people who have a dislike for the Jewish people. To be sure, Jews are human the same as ourselves and undoubtedly there are characteristics among them that people may not like, as is the case with all of us. They are also human in the sense that they deserve humane treatment. I remind hon. members that they are part of the human race and have contributed to the race some of the greatest characters in our history. The culture that they have given to us, particularly of a religious nature, is something that our civilization would be a great deal poorer without. 'May I emphasize also that to help these people would do us good. I believe it would increase our own sense of humanity, and increase our own consciousness of the fact that we are trying to establish a better world in which we will get rid of racial hatred, prejudice and antagonism. Somehow we in this country should rise up and do the generous and humane thing for these people.
I dare to hope that the government, fully conscious of the attitude of many people toward this question, might seek in this instance not to do just what they are being asked to do by some small sections of the population, but to give a lead in this matter.
I say again these people-millions of them- we shall not be able to help, no matter how much of initiative we may display, because of the determination of the nazi regime to do away with as many of them as they possibly can. Yet there are many who could be helped if it were made known that there are areas of sanctuary in various parts of the world. I recall that this morning when the Prime Minister was speaking on this matter he referred to the necessity of secrecy, for military reasons. I believe his remarks were

Supply-External Affairs
to this effect, that we would have to be careful lest by making it known that we would receive Jewish or other refugees rather freely, it would result in the nazis taking advantage of that fact to send spies into this country. It is admittedly difficult-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That reference was not peculiarly to Jews; it was to refugees generally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe I made that inclusion in my remarks, if I did not I accept the Prime Minister's correction. It strikes me that secrecy is something behind which it is possible to do what ought to be done, or to do too little, or even nothing. I regret that the Prime Minister feels the necessity of putting secrecy upon this matter for that reason. I only hope the remarks that I have made and that others may perhaps make may convince the Prime Minister that, within such secrecy as it is necessary to have, he and the government should do everything possible to provide sanctuary for these people, because I am satisfied that, despite the feelings that there may be among our own people toward this race, an effort of this kind would do us good; it would help to increase our own sense of humanity; and it would help to make possible a better world with less of race prejudice, hatred and the things for which Hitler stands and against which we are fighting at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if I understand that he advocates doing away with secrecy, because he says he regrets there has to be secrecy used. Secrecy is only for the purpose of security. Do I understand him to say he advocates doing away with secrecy in the matter?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I expressed the hope that if it is necessary to maintain that secrecy, and I have no option but to accept the Prime Minister's statement on his responsibility that it is. then within that secrecy I hope he will not make the mistake of doing too little, but that he will do all that is possible.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In the light of the speech he has just made, at the risk of being judged as over-suspicious with regard to speeches from that group, may I ask, would he state whether they intend to put a candidate in the Jacques Cartier constituency?


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That was a wise idea, was it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not a question of what we intend to do; there is already a candidate in Cartier. I submit that it is an
72537-292}
irrelevant question; it hardly deserves an answer, but I may say that there are only three federal constituencies in Canada where the Jewish people are numerous enough, to hope to elect a member of their own race to this house. Any political party that would confine its interest to three constituencies only would not be politically wise.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, I rose to speak on this matter solely because my humanitarian instincts would not allow me to keep my seat.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, by the look of some of the hon. members this evening it would appear that this subject is not a particularly popular one, and yet I consider it necessary to make a few remarks in support of what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I am in agreement wth him that perhaps not quite as wide a section of our people are interested in this subject as should be. Yet I believe there is enough public sympathy and there are enough people in this country who are wondering why Canada is not able to take a greater lead among the united nations in helping the refugees from Europe to ensure sufficient interest in this matter to make it worth while. One unfortunate aspect of this whole problem is that the fascist propaganda has permeated farther than the nations under fascist control. If we do have to have in our own so-called democratic country a certain amount of anti-Semitic feeling, it is the product of fascist ideology and should have no place in any democratic country. The persecution of any minority people becomes, later, an obsession and madness. Intolerance is just a barbaric custom; it is a form more or less of a persecution mania which we thought we had left behind us long ago in the middle ages. To accept any form of intolerance is to debase ourselves to Hitler's level of intelligence and barbarity. I should like to quote from a book published in 1937, one which has been very widely read, and which has been acknowledged to be one of the finest statements prepared on the subject of the fascist state. It was written by Professor Brady, associate professor of economics of the university of California. He calls his book "The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism", and he quotes from a statement by Darre, reichminister of agriculture, in which he says:
The Semites reject everything that pertains to the pig. The Nordic peoples, on the contrary, accord the pig the highest possible honour ... in the cult of the'Germans the pig occupies the first place and is the first among the domestic animals ... This predominance of the pig, the sacred animal destined to sacrifices among the Nordic peoples, has drawn its
Supply-External Affairs

originality from the great trees of the German forest ... Thus out of the darkness of earliest history arise two human races whose attitude in respect of pigs presents an absolute contrast ... The Semites and the pig are faunal and thus physiological opposites. It is not unthinkable that the eating of pig flesh by the Semite sets up physiological disharmonies in his body ... The Semites do not understand the pig, they do not accept the pig, they reject the pig, whereas this animal occupies the first place in the cult of the Nordic peoples.
This is only one small illustration of the wholesale absurdity upon which fascist theories have been built, theories which to-day are responsible for the ghastly slaughter of millions of most innocent people. It is perhaps more necessary that we should understand why the German nazis used antiSemitism as a weapon in their hands. I shall continue to quote from the same chapter by Professor Brady. He says:
By outlawing Jews it provides a partial solution for the job hunger of loyal nazi party adherents. The bulk of these active rank and file adherents fall into the middle strata of professional and trades people on the one hand, and politically active youth in search for jobs in these fields on the other. It is in precisely these fields that the Jews, comprising less than one-half of one per cent of the total population, were the most active.
He goes on to say:
The Jews served very well as ''bogeyman" for the nazi strategists. The German peasant is led to believe that the Jew stole all his hard-won earnings away from him by some devil's magic on the commodity exchanges. The petit-bourgeois classes were told that the Jew aspired to control all professional jobs, ruin small tradesmen (note the campaigns against Wertheims and other large departmental stores), and dominate for "racial purposes" all big industry and the _ financial machinery of the country. Labour is asked to believe that cynical and self-seeking Jews, under the guise of Marxism, stirred up labour discontent which they could exploit to their own cruel advantage and in which they did, as a matter of course, continuously betray the interests they affected to represent. Young girls and women are taught that physical contact with the Jew will corrupt them biologically.
By these means the "attention of the masses was diverted" to see the Jew as the cause of low farm prices, high retail prices, adulteration of goods, onerous tax burdens for reparations payments, low wages, unsatisfactory labour conditions, and many other crimes against the Aryan people. . . . Needless to say, not only did the Jews not "control" or set interest rates, agricultural indebtedness, or speculative activity, but also the nazis did not abolish these activities. What they attempted to do was to lead the populace to believe that in suppressing the Jews, they had corrected the abuses of which so many had with such justice so long and bitterly complained.
There is without doubt a widespread feeling among large sections of the British people that more could be done to prevent loss of
fMrs. Nielsen.]
life at the present time. Reference has already been made to the pamphlet published by Victor Gollancz entitled) "Let My People Go". It is a significant fact that over 150,000 copies of this small pamphlet have been bought by the British people since the beginning of this year. Some of our greatest world figures have expressed horror at the continued barbarity toward the Jewish people, notably the Pope, the President of .the United States, Mr. Churchill and also our own Prime Minister. We are told by some that of course the solution is to win the war. Naturally I agree with that. One cannot quarrel with the truth, of that statement. But the point is that while the united nations are straining every nerve and effort to do .that, how many hundreds of thousands of these people are to be left to their horrible fate until the war is won. Cannot something more be done to prevent the slaughter of these people, before we are in a position to establish control over Europe? I would remind hon. members of the committee that sympathy for these people, alone, will not save their lives.
On December 17 last year a statement was made in the British House of Commons on this problem by Mr. Anthony Eden. He said at that time that those who were responsible for these crimes will receive retribution. But retribution in a year or two years' time will not save the lives of those who to-night, at this very moment, may be meeting a fate more tragic than either you or I could conceive, and they are meeting that fate at the hands of these demented sadists.
These horrors are so far away from us they have not touched us intimately as a nation. I should like .to quote from this pamphlet written by Mr. Victor Gollancz, who is himself a Jew. I do not wish to add any horror, any more than anyone else does; and yet, as I said before, these things are so far away from us that I believe if we could only bring them near to us, and try to feel ourselves as these Jewish people and other refugees on the continent are feeling at this very moment, it might help perhaps to instill into us the necessity for doing something.
I quote this from page 8 of his pamphlet:
You will read that ten thousand are being sent every day from Warsaw to the slaughter camps further east: you will read that one hundred and fifty men. women and children are being packed into a sealed coach just big enough to hold forty, so that when they arrive the living, the dying, and the dead fall out together, and the peasants fly from the stench. Forget "ten thousand": forget "one hundred and fifty"; or rather, remember them only for purposes of multiplication, and in order to grasp the magnitude of the horror. For a few brief moments, be just one of those human beings, whose body,

Supply-External Affairs
with its nerves that can suffer so, and whose mind and soul, with all their resources of terror and despair, are concealed by the cold abstraction of "one hundred and fifty" and "ten thousand" and "six million". And then be another, and another. Be the mother flinging her baby from a sixth-storey window: be a girl of nine, torn from her parents and standing in the dark of a moving truck with two corpses pressed close against her; be an old Jew at the door of the electrocution chamber. And only then when you have been each of these for a few short moments, do the multiplication.
I would say that this is definitely not a Jewish problem. It is a problem of humanity itself. After the matter had been discussed in the British House of Commons by Mr. Anthony Eden, one of the members of the house, Miss Rathbone, wrote a letter to the News Chronicle of December 16, in which she said this:
Few people realize the rigidity of the regulations by which the home secretary now controls the entry of refugees to this country and the corresponding regulations affecting the colonies. Except for allied nationals specially asked for by their governments and a few children who cannot in effect be brought here, the door is practically barred. . . . The first step, therefore, is to demand the revision of these regulations, so that refugees for whom the only chance of escape from torture and death is a visa for a safe country shall no longer be met at every turn by the notice "you may not enter here . The whole matter has larger implications. The settlement during and after the war of refugees, especially the Jews, concerns not only the home office, but also the foreign office, the dominions and the colonies.
At least it seems that at the present time, through the good offices of some of the neutral countries, we might approach the fascist nations. I remember this morning the Prime Minister said that we can have no faith in them. I agree with him. Of course Hitler can either accept or refuse. Naturally there is the danger that he may use the method of infiltration, by sending his spies in among the refugees. Naturally the greatest care will have to be taken. It would seem to me that if we made some approach to the neutral nations it would give some comfort at least to the people in the occupied countries and even those in Germany who have still some spark of decency within them and realize the disastrous fate that is before the Jewish people and others. Surely adult refugees could be placed in concentration camps so that, with the very greatest care having to be exercised, not one of [DOT]them could go outside for any purpose, and therefore the danger of spies to a very great degree would be controlled. In parts of Africa and Palestine it would appear that there must be room for refugee people. At present small numbers of refugee people are getting through to neutral countries, but the trouble is that the neutral countries are so
small and are so overburdened with refugees that it is impossible for them to be continually taking more. Therefore they are forced to shut the door to further refugees. But if we were able to remove from some of the neutral countries the refugees who are already there and place them in camps in Africa or Palestine, it would make room for more of these unfortunates to come through to the neutral countries, and surely if it were only for the sake of a handful of refugees it would be worth the attempt. I quote further from Mr. Gollancz, on the question of allowing refugees into Palestine:
Palestine could absorb 50,000 Jews in its war industries immediately, to the great benefit of the allied war effort. There would also be room for thousands of children. The country and the allied war machinery are, indeed, crying out for more men. The military authorities need 30,000 unskilled and 5,000 skilled workers. Agricultural production in Palestine is gravely curtailed for lack of labour.
He continues:
In view of all this, what possible reason can there be, in common sense or humanity, for the present policy? What is that policy?
In the government White Paper of May, 1939, it was laid down that during the five years beginning April, 1939, 75,000 Jewish immigrants should be admitted into the country, and that thereafter Jewish immigration should cease permanently. This is not the place to discuss whether this restriction was compatible with the terms of the Balfour declaration, which declared the intention of setting up a Jewish national home in Palestine, or with the terms of the mandate based on it. Those who read the White Paper will perhaps feel in the very uneasiness of its phraseology the confession that, "for political reasons", a trust was being broken.	_
However that may be, 75.000 by April, 1944, was the number to be admitted. The number so far admitted is less than 40,000. That is to say, according to the terms of the White Paper itself, more than 35,000 immigration certificates are still outstanding during the next fifteen months. Is it conceivable that the government can refuse to grant them now, more especially in view of the economic needs of the country which have been mentioned above? Apparently it is conceivable. But if the refusal is persisted in, then the government cannot be held blameless for the fate of men, women and children who might otherwise have been saved.
It will not help any mother or any parent of a child in an occupied country to know that the murderer of the child will be punished at some future time. But we can try to save that child now, and if we fail to do so I think you and I might just as well acknowledge that the story of the Good Samaritan has fallen on deaf ears, that we have failed to apply that principle to the need which has arisen in our own day and age, and that like other nations we are passing by on the other side of the road and not heeding the cries of those who need our assistance.
Supply-External Affairs

We are fighting to-day the greatest robber and the greatest murderer of mankind that the world has ever known, and if you and I have a conscience we have to see that the necessary ways and means are found, even though a certain degree of secrecy will have to be maintained; for, of course, we must see that Hitler does not use anything we may do to further his own aims or help him in any way. I think it would be a good thing to let some of the German people know that we are aware of what is going on; for, after all is said and done, we have to realize that there are some, perhaps only a few, left of the German people who have a conscience and who realize what is happening. I quote again from Mr. Gollancz' publication. He says that on December 27, Reynolds newspaper:
. . . publishes details of a manifesto issued by a conference of all anti-fascist groups in Germany, which recently met secretly, and which declares that peace will be possible only after complete destruction of the Hitler regime, that all concentration camps must be closed, that all anti-Jewish and race laws must be annulled, that religious, economic, political and press freedom must be reestablished, and that there must be a foreign policy based on peace and international cooperation. The manifesto is being broadcast by the secret German Freedom Radio, at the risk of death or torture for everyone involved, and is being directed to the German army as well as to the home front.
We must not neglect to realize that there are some people in Germany who would help if only we would let them know across the distances of the world that we were endeavouring to do something. I cannot help feeling that there is need for Canada asking Britain for a revision of the regulations regarding the entry of refugees. If we were to help the neutral countries to evacuate the refugees who are already there to parts of Africa and Palestine, it would be possible for more refugees to go into the neutral countries from the occupied countries of Europe. I believe that this country could collect money for the necessary camps, food, ships, transportation facilities and so on for this service. Broadcasts could go out from this country and fiom other countries, and the Catholic people of this country should ask the Vatican to send out broadcasts, because they would possibly be listened to by more people in the occupied countries than broadcasts coming from our own or from the British government. In that way we could feel that we had at least tried to do something for these unfortunate people, and we would have the satisfaction of knowing we had done our best for these 
people-not Jews, nor Czechs nor Poles-just people, remembering that what was said long ago still holds:
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Chairman, we have listened to various subjects discussed to-day. I rise more particularly	to draw to	the	attention	of	thePrime Minister and of the committee a subject of vital interest to the people of Canada, although	perhaps of	more interest	to	the
people of the Pacific coast.
I wish to draw to the Prime Minister's attention,	a matter which	might affect	ourfisheries,	particularly	the	fisheries	of	the
Pacific coast. The matter I have in mind has to do with the waters off our Canadian shores and beyond the three-mile limit.
Dealing with our salmon fisheries, may I say to the members of the committee that all the salmon caught off the Pacific coast of British Columbia and in our rivers are born and reared in Canadian waters, streams and creeks. After a period there of from one to two years they go out to sea and return, according to the variety of the salmon, in either three or four years, with some varieties staying out until they are almost five years old. Then they return from the open sea and head inward to the Eraser river and other Canadian rivers.
During the time they are at sea these fish feed and grow on what is known as the continental shelf, which is a ridge rising from the bed of the ocean to within two or three hundred feet of the surface. This ridge or continental shelf runs parallel to our entire coast-line at a distance of some twenty miles off shore. It is along these banks that the salmon feed until the time comes for them to leturn to the place where they were born for the purpose of spawning, after which they die.
I urge upon the Prime Minister that these waters should be recognized as Canadian or United States waters for the protection of our salmon and for fishing purposes. Vessels from any country could come along and wipe out our entire salmon fishing industry by fishing the continental shelf. The United States and Canada have entered into a treaty to rehabilitate and preserve the sockeye salmon fishing. At the last meeting of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries commission a resolution was passed which I should like to place on^ the records of the house, because the matter is of vital concern not only to the

Supply-External Affairs
people of the Pacific coast but to all our people as well. The resolution reads as
follows:
Whereas, the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission was created pursuant to a convention entered into between the United States and the Dominion of Canada primarily for the purpose of rehabilitating the Fraser river sockeye salmon supply, and
Whereas, it is confidently expected by the commission that its projected work in the removal of obstructions and in the regulation of the fishery will be successful, and
Whereas, said convention included within its terms the territorial waters and the high seas westward from the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America within lines therein described, and
Whereas, it seems probable that it will be practical for fishermen and vessels of other nations to operate on Swiftsure banks and other places more than three miles off shore and if permitted to do so in disregard of the regulations adopted by the commission, may drastically interfere with the restoration of the salmon supply referred to.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the attention of the governments of the two nations be called to this situation in order that such steps may be taken as, in the opinion of said governments, may appear advisable.
It is most important now, I believe, that steps be taken by both the United States and Canada in this matter, and I would ask that the Prime Minister's office start negotiations with the United States along the lines outlined in the resolution.
I would draw to the attention of the committee that the terms of the treaty concerning sockeye salmon fisheries which was concluded between the United States and Canada specify very vaguely the extent of our jurisdiction over the offshore waters, because article 1 of the treaty provides that it shall apply to the following waters:
The territorial waters and the high seas westward from the western coast of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada.
I maintain that the limits set should be more specific and definite; as the treaty stands, these waters would extend right out to the shores of Japan. What we are asking is that we go at least as far as the continental shelf where the sockeye salmon feed for three or four years before returning to Canadian waters.
There is another matter along similar lines that I should like also at this time to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister and to the members of the committee. This has to do with the waters lying between Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of British Columbia, and known as Hecate strait.
Queen Charlotte islands are a large group of islands extending 100 miles in length and have an area of 4,005 square miles, in size about twice the size of Prince Edward Island.
The territory equals over 20 million acres of land. The narrowest width of sea is at the north end, which is only some nineteen miles from the mainland, whereas at the south end it is some fifty miles wide.
The waters between the islands and the mainland are known as Hecate strait, and at the present time these waters are fished by both Canadian and United States fishermen.
Since Canada has not designated these waters as "Canadian waters", there is nothing, however, to prevent fishing vessels from any foreign nation from fishing within the strait itself.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister that Canada did take some steps some years ago. As long ago as 1896 Canadian patrol vessels warned foreign fishermen against operating in these waters. Captain Walbran of the D.G.S. Quadra reported that in that year he had warned United States vessels they were fishing in Canadian waters, and that these, after having been warned, left the strait.
There are many instances in the world today where certain countries claim' territorial rights extending considerable distances over large expanses of water, and it may interest hon. members to know that the so-called three-mile limit, which is usually referred to as the limit which a country should have in the exercise of its rights, differs entirely throughout the world. In fact, there is no such thing as an international law on the matter. Some countries, like Russia, established a twelve-mile limit. The Bering sea tribunal in 1893 established a sixty-mile zone for fur-seals. Delaware bay, which is twenty miles wide, is recognized as within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, while Chesapeake bay, which is twelve miles wide at the entrance and extends 270 miles long, is entirely closed to all foreign fishermen. Hudson bay is another example. Canada prohibited any fishing in Hudson bay for anyone without a licence from the dominion.
Great Britain, which has throughout .long years fought for the freedom of the seas, itself prosecuted a Captain Mortensen, who was operating a Norwegian steam trawler called Niobe, which vessel was seized for fishing in Moray firth. Captain Mortensen was fined for fishing five miles from shore.
Uruguay exercises control over one-half of the river La Plata, though the river at its mouth is 135 miles wide and is fifty miles wide 100 miles from the open sea.
Going back to ancient history-this may interest hon. members who may believe in the universality of the so-called three-mile limit -Venice once claimed and enforced the entire Adriatic sea, which was 500 miles long by
Supply- External Affairs

100 miles wide. Every ship entering there was searched; even the Pope of that day protested about his ships being molested.
The first definition of the three-mile limit occurred in 1818 when a treaty between Great Britain and United States was signed, but it is interesting to note that neither of these nations has fully adhered to this. Even the mile has differed over a period of time. The mile in Queen Elizabeth's time was 5,000 feet; in the 38th year of her reign it was 5,240 feet. The Spanish mile is 4,656 yards; the Dutch, 8,240 yards; the French, 4,263 yards; the German short mile, 6,859 yards. Therefore, when one speaks of the three-mile limit, what does that actually mean; which mile are they speaking of, the English land mile, which is 5,280 feet, or the nautical mile, 6,075 feet, or do they refer to the French, Dutch or that of the Spaniard?
Here we have, Mr. Chairman, large islands lying off the Pacific coast, and no steps yet have been taken to preserve for fishing the waters lying between them. It is my opinion that steps should be taken now to declare that the waters lying off our shores and between Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland, known as the Hecate strait, be known as Canadian waters, and I am appealing to the Prime Minister now that the matters that I have spoken of be taken seriously and that steps be taken to discuss this situation both with the United States and with our own Canadian departments.
May I point out that this is an opportune time for making an approach to the United States in the matter. It may interest hon. members to know that the United States and Canada are the only two countries in the world which have treaties with regard to fish. The treaty they put into effect to protect the fur-seals has increased the fur-seal herd' from 100,000 to a flock of upwards of 2,000,000 and brought a net revenue to this country of $312,000 last year. Our halibut might have disappeared entirely by now if the United States and Canada had not entered into a treaty to protect and rehabilitate the halibut, which is fished for off the Canadian and Alaskan shores.
Coming to the recent salmon treaty signed by the United States and Canada to rehabilitate the sockeye salmon, I might point out that at one time the catch in the Fraser river waters amounted to two and a half million cases, whereas last year, which was quite a high yield year, some 600,000 cases only were canned by our fishermen.
There will be a great demand for food after the war. There will also be a great demand

for fish. No steps have been taken to exclude from fishing off our shores fishing vessels of other nationals.
In 1938, at a conference on the Pacific coast of representatives from various north and south American countries, as well as representatives from Japan, it was pointed out to the delegates that the halibut was protected and had been increasing as a result of the treaty and that the salmon was also protected and was not allowed to be entirely destroyed, but the Japanese delegates at that conference said to the gathering, "We have caught salmon and other varieties of fish off your shores, but we never noticed either the union jack or the stars and stripes on their backs." In other words, they took the view that fish in the open seas belong to any national or any person who goes after them and catches them. We take a different attitude, especially as they are born in our waters. We say that owing to our protection and the treaty between the two countries, both halibut and salmon have been increasing, and we argue that they would probably have disappeared in some of the fishing banks had the two countries not entered1 into such a treaty. In fact, we have led the world in the matter of fishery treaties.
I am strongly of opinion that steps should be taken now with regard to the waters off our shores in the Hecate strait as well as the strait of Juan de Fuca, where our salmon feed on the continental banks.	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of External Affairs and the Department of Fisheries have been, looking into the problem of the Pacific coast fisheries, both the halibut and salmon fisheries. I shall be very glad to take careful note of what the hon. member has said, and I welcome from any source suggestions that may prove helpful.


Norman Jaques: I do not propose to make my remarks of any length to-night, but I would refer to certain statements made this morning in committee. I have here a cutting from to-day's Ottawa Journal in which I am charged with hating the Jews. I will not read the whole thing, but this is not the first time that my name has been bandied about the country and has appeared in the press as a Jew-baiter by some, and a Jew-hater by others. It seems to be taken for granted that merely to criticize, in fact merely to mention a Jew, is to lay oneself open to the charge of being a Jew-baiter, and coming from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, as it did this morning, I think that only

Supply-External Affairs
adds to the offence. Surely if there is a group in this house the members of which are wont to express their hatred for this person or that person, whenever they rise in their places, it is the group-not all of them, but some of the group-of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, as I believe the Minister of Finance remarked the other night. Apparently anybody who manages to make more than an average success of his affairs is attacked, or at least is regarded with hatred by some of the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group.
On another occasion I was speaking on the budget, and I read a list of the leading international financiers whose names were all household words. I merely read the list. Everybody knows them, and I merely asked, how many are British names, how many French names, and for that matter how many Christian? At once I was assailed. In fact, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) immediately rose to his feet and said, "No Jew baiting." That got out into the press. Later on, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was speaking in the house and he referred to my criticism of the address that Mr. Sandwell gave some months ago on the League of Nations, in which he advocated that the Canadian people should surrender their loyalty to the crown and hand it over to international control.
I have here a copy of an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. It says:
Mr. Jaques raised the question of whether the views of B. K. Sandwell, the Toronto editor, on a supranational world order were seditious. When M. J. Coldwell, the C.C.F. leader, who is a member of the League of Nations Society, sought to reply, Mr. Jaques interrupted by muttering, "Jewish bankers", and "gold standard." Mr. Coldwell said, "I am afraid my hon. friend has the gold standard on his brain."
I will challenge anybody in this house to find those words on Hansard. I never said that.


Major James William Coldwell: Not on Hansard, because you always mutter them and some people cannot hear them.


Norman Jaques: I never said that, and the
hon. member will have to take my word for it. I said the gold standard, and I say it again. That is what they are working for.


Thomas Reid: That is nothing to what they say about me regarding the Japanese.


Norman Jaques: More than that, Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing to stand on my reputation in this house and out of the house, too, as a loyal citizen of Canada, and' I will challenge anybody in this house or out of
it to finds one authentic quotation of mine in which I have showed in any way that I am either a Jew-baiter or in favour of Jew persecution. I will say more. I happen to be one of the few members of this house who, in September, 1939, demanded, in the name of this group, that Canada should wage total war against the German nazi gangsters. I could quote those views if necessary, but I think that is remembered by those who were present in the house.	As the Montreal
Gazette in an editorial recently said, the Social Credit group was the only group in the house at that time who stood and demanded total war against the nazi gangsters. I am not saying, "I told you so." I am not making the statement in that sense; I am merely saying that actions speak louder than words. What was the attitude of those members, and especially the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation who is now such a champion of the persecuted Jews? I quote from Hansard of September 9, 1939, at page 55 as follows:
Canada should be prepared to defend her own shores, but her assistance overseas should be limited to economic aid and must not include conscription of man-power or the sending of any expeditionary force.
I do not wish to rub that in at all; I am merely stating it. Perhaps I had better address it to the Jews and ask them who are their best friends. Suppose Britain had received no aid and had gone down, as she was within an ace of doing. The result might have been that Hitler would have controlled the western hemisphere as well as the eastern hemisphere, and the granting of aid to all persecuted minorities would have been impossible.
The cause of the little flare-up this morning was a remark I made which was not heard by Hansard. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was speaking as usual in a sort of global way, although I have never accepted his global authority. My own private opinion is that it is "globaloney", but when he claimed that his memory goes back two thousand years I found that a little too much to swallow. The hon. gentleman told the old story or fable if you like, about Joseph and the Jewish refugees going into Egypt and becoming the parents of the founder of our Christian religion. I merely said that the only thing wrong with that story was that he was not a Jew. My authority for saying that is the Dean of St. Paul's, who, I take it, is an eminent authority on the subject. I do not profess to be an authority at all.
Supply-External Affairs

Those who are so solicitous at the present time for the fortunes of the Jews in Europe are precisely those who opposed any preparation or rearmament against the growing threat of Hitler. I make that statement without fear of challenge. All minorities, including Jews, have enjoyed greater protection and justice and have received fairer treatment under British rule, under British crown, or even, if you like, under British imperialism than under any other control. I say that without fear of contradiction. But it is precisely those people who profess such sympathy for these wretched, persecuted minorities who are working and have been working tooth and nail to destroy that very British protection. That is the stand I take.
I think I can say for the party to which I belong, for that matter for the whole Social Credit movement throughout the British empire, that we anchor ourselves absolutely to the British crown. We believe that that is the best guarantee of peace and justice for the minorities and, if you like, for the majorities as well. We are utterly opposed1 to any scheme or any proposal or any plan that would surrender any part of that control to any international organization for any reason whatever. We believe in cooperation as there has been cooperation for the last hundred years with our neighbour to the south. Why interfere with relations which have been so peaceful and pleasant in the past?
I think most hon. members will realize that I am not likely to rise and talk merely for the sake of talking. I am talking tonight because I feel it is my duty to do so. I think that is realized by every hon. member. And I say to those outside the -house that although the flesh may be weak, I can assure them that, the spirit is as strong as ever. I realize the charges that will be made in the press after this morning to the effect that I am a Jew-baiter or a Jew-hater. Let me say that since the session of two years ago I have faced the grim reaper, not for a few minutes but for many months. As I lay in the hospital I thought deeply and long. I do not think I need to assure hon. members that I have no axe to grind. I have no ambitions in this world other than to establish the truth as I see it and to make conditions better for those who follow me. As I say, I have no ambitions, and, if I had, they would be out of the question, of ever leading a party or planning the order of this country, let alone of the universe. That is not for me. Perhaps I have an advantage to make up for that. I have no fear of any

individual or any group of individuals. Why should I have? I have nothing to lose. The idea which is prevalent and which seems to be growing that the Jews are above criticism, or that to criticize a Jew or even to mention the fact that anybody is a Jew is to lay oneself open to the charge of Jew baitiDg is preposterous nonsense, and I do not propose to take the slightest notice of it. I am not afraid of any man whether he has a hooked nose or a forked tail. Why should I be? Immediately the Jew is criticized, somebody takes the attitude that nobody has any right to do it and, if he does it, he is indulging in sacrilege. That is a most dangerous idea, and it is a warning, if I may say so, of what might happen were this minority to achieve the control which some people believe, and perhaps for good reason, that they hope to acquire throughout the world. For that reason, if for no other, I and the group to which I belong are utterly opposed to any surrender of the sovereignty of the British empire or of Canada. We are all part of the British empire. We believe in it. Within the British empire all peoples, including minorities, have had better and fairer treatment than under any other that has existed on earth.
I do not feel able to continue to-night, but I hope to make a few more remarks later on in this debate.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Chairman, I hesitated to say anything earlier in this debate, although the question of external affairs is one in which I am deeply interested. There is a great deal to be said in regard to the matter that was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the hon. member for North Battleford. It is amazing that any hon. member in this house could speak so lightly at this time on that question, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw did in the question he asked. It shows a callousness of mind and an emotional immaturity that is hardly understandable in an hon. member of this house.
As the hour is late I shall emphasize only two points. First, I believe that our future depends on working out a foreign policy along with the other nations of the world.
The Prime Minister this morning stated that the time was approaching when we must begin to shape the outline of the new world that is to follow after the war. It is to be regretted that he did not give us more information in regard to what the government's policies are. I believe the time has

Supply-External Affairs
come when we must begin to formulate policies, and in that regard I would say our approach this time must be different from what it was in the period between the last war and the beginning of the present war.
If we are to have a successful international policy-and when I say "we", I mean Canada in cooperation with the other nations of the world'-we must have a positive policy. The trouble with our policy in the period between the first world war and the second world war was that it was not a positive policy for peace; it was a negative policy to avoid war. I well remember the stock answer that we were given in the house when we asked questions about the government's attitude toward such matters as the Spanish affair, or about the shipment of war material to Japan. We were always told by the Prime Minister that his great concern was to avoid war, not to do anything that would give cause for offence. That was the sort of attitude that led to the present war.
I am firmly convinced that the democratic nations of Europe, Great Britain and France particularly, although they are largely responsible for the war, did not wish war, did not want war. did not consciously prepare for it. They were set on maintaining things as they were, of maintaining their privileges, their place in the world. They allowed the aggressors to prosper in order that the armed forces of Germany would crush a workers' revolution, of which they were afraid. Let me repeat that the essential thing in a new foreign policy to prevent war is that in the first place it will be a positive policy.
I am very happy to-night to find myself in accord with nearly all that was said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I think he made a most excellent speech and said many things that needed to be said. I agree with the statement that we must put our trust in a system of collective security when this war is over. I believe also that we must begin building that collective security system now. I see no hope for security for Canada in any combination outside a collective security system that will give security not only to Canada but to every nation in the world.
I was surprised this morning to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South say that the British commonwealth of nations and the United States should form an alliance, and that they should tell the world that they are forming an alliance. I admit the sincerity of the hon. member's approach to the question; but to my mind nothing could be more dangerous at this time than for two of the powerful partners in the united nations to say that they intend to form a close alliance. If the United States and the British commonwealth of nations, two of the large units in the united nations, will form an alliance, what is to prevent Russia and China from forming an alliance? We would have again the same old power blocks, one against the other.
I may not know a great deal about international affairs, but I submit that that is not the way in which world peace can be maintained. We have before us a choice of one of two things. We have a choice of being a partner in a system of collective security, where each nation in that collective system will have protection against aggression from any quarter, or we can go along forming alliances and building up balances of power, which policy will ultimately lead to a war such as that in which we are now engaged. Any system of security will also have to be one based on the equality of the nations.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said this evening that we of the British empire, or the British commonwealth of nations, whichever you like, were a very fine people, indeed, but that unfortunately the rest of the world did not have the exalted opinion of our virtues that we have ourselves. I was recently talking to a gentleman who holds a high position in this country. Some three years ago he had taken advantage of an opportunity of flying from the United Kingdom to Australia by the usual route-Lisbon, along the Mediterranean, crossing to Egypt and Persia and India, and then along the South Sea islands to Australia. He told me that in all the places visited on that trip he did not meet any native peoples who were friendly to the British empire. He said that where they were not neutral as to which of the warring nations they would have rule them, they were definitely hostile. His statement was that their attitude was largely owing to the superior attitude adopted by the people Britain had sent to those countries as governors.
AVhat is said by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) may be quite true, namely, that by and large the British government has given government as good as or better than any other country. The fact remains, however, that the British government was ruling larger sections of the world than any other country, and governments are usually unpopular. The government you have not is usually better than the one you have.
The War-Sicily

The British empire has a great deal for which it is responsible, because it has had tremendous opportunities.
The hour is late, and I do not wish to say anything further, except that I want again to emphasize that if we are to reap the fruits of the sacrifices of this war; if we are to get some return in peace and prosperity for the young lives that are being sacrificed in this war, we shall get it only through a system of collective security, in which each nation- Canada included-will become a guarantor for the peace and safety of all nations.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven, o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 12, 1943