Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the brief review of the progress of the war which I gave to this house on Friday morning last, I said that the North African campaign had marked the triumphal close of an important chapter in the war. I also said that the new German offensive against Russia launched earlier in the week, along with recent intensified bombings of the strategic areas over Europe, marked a place of new beginning. I intimated too that the aerial and commando assaults against Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean were parts of a single strategy which the immediate future might be expected rapidly to unfold and of which the liberation of the French empire in Africa was both an essential and a memorable prelude.
Since the house adjourned on Friday evening, events in the new phase of the war of liberation have unfolded with great rapidity. Hon. members, I am sure, will wish to have on the records of our parliament the text of the communique which announced the attack which has, as its ultimate objective, the unconditional surrender of Italy and Germany, and- the beginning of the first major land operation in which Canadian forces have taken part in the present war. The communique was received at midnight from allied force advance headquarters in Algiers, North Africa. It was
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
made public immediately, which was July 10, Ottawa time. It reads:
Allied forces, under the command of General Eisenhower, began landing operations on Sicily early this morning. The landings were preceded by allied air attack. Allied naval forces escorted the assault forces and bombarded the coast defences during the assault.
A supplementary communique was issued by the war department at Washington at 12.20 a.m., July 10. This disclosed that the allied forces concerned were Anglo-American-Cana-dian forces.
Following the issuance of the communique from General Eisenhower's headquarters, an avis or notice was read on General Eisenhower's behalf to the people of France making clear that the offensive launched against Sicily was the first stage in the liberation of the European continent, but equally clear that the general invasion of Europe had not as yet begun. The people of France were asked to remember this, to remain calm and not expose themselves to reprisals by acting too quickly. They were told that when the time for the general invasion came, they would be informed accordingly.
The text of this announcement to the Frenchmen of metropolitan France was in the following words:
Anglo-American-Canadian armed forces have to-day launched an offensive against Sicily. It is the first stage in the liberation of the European continent, there will be others. I call on the French people to remain calm, not to allow themselves to be deceived by the false rumours which the enemy might circulate. The allied radio will keep you informed on military developments. I count on your sang-froid, and on your sense of discipline. Do not be rash, for the enemy is watching. Keep on listening to the allied radio, and never heed rumours. Verify carefully the news you receive by remaining calm, by not exposing yourselves to reprisals through premature action, you will be helping us effectively. When the hour of action strikes, we will let you know. Till then help us byfollowing our instructions-that is to say, keep calm, conserve your strength. We repeat when the hour of action strikes, we w-ill let your know.
For all time, Canada will be justifiably proud of the fact that, when the attack for the liberation of the conquered and enslaved countries of Europe was launched by the armed forces of Britain, the United States, and Canada, on European soil, units of the Canadian army were at the spearhead of the attack.
As to the size and composition of the Canadian forces taking part in the invasion of Sicily, I am, for reasons of security, limited to saying that the force is a substantial one, and that Canada's fighting men, in this assault, have been drawn from every province of the dominion. They include both Frenchspeaking and English-speaking Canadians.

The War-Sicily
The knowledge that the force is representative of so many parts of Canada will heighten our pride in their selection for so important a task.
It is a further source of satisfaction for our country to know that squadrons and formations of the Royal Canadian Air Force had a significant place in the operations against Sicily.
It is too early to make a statement on the progress of operations in Sicily in which our forces, together with forces from the United Kingdom and the United States, are engaged. The first reports of the allied landings indicate that the initial phases of this vital operation have proceeded according to plan, and that the allied forces are now striking deeply into Sicily. The success of the initial landings is a tribute to the careful planning which preceded this vast undertaking and to the close cooperation of the land, sea and air forces under General Eisenhower's command.
The most that can be said at the moment is that the first critical period has passed. The most critical .period has still to come. It will be when the enemy counter-attacks. When that time comes we must expect severe action. There will be heavy fighting. Counterattacks, I believe, have already begun.
Here may I say a word about the nature and extent of the information which it will be possible for the government to give hon. members regarding military operations. We are fully conscious of the deep and legitimate interest of the house and the country in operations in which Canadian troops are engaged. We should, however, not lose sight of the fact that in the present operations in Sicily British and United States troops are engaged as well as our own. All three governments must be guided largely by the judgment of the military commanders as to what information can be made public with due regard for military security. That information is necessarily and rightly made available on the spot to the press.
There is no way in which the government on day to day military operations, can be better informed than the press, except to the extent that information is available which in the opinion of the military commanders should be kept secret in order to ensure the safety of their troops or the success of future operations. I shall not attempt therefore to give day to day summaries of the progress of operations. From time to time, as circumstances warrant, statements will be made in the house either by myself or by the Ministers of National Defence as to the significance of
events. In that respect the practice here will be similar to the practice followed in the parliament at Westminster.
As to information regarding the progress of operations from day to day, the army, like the air force, has made what are confidently believed to be effective arrangements to provide information as fully and rapidly as security permits. In this connection, no doubt many hon. members heard the broadcast given from Algiers by Flight Lieutenant Leslie Powell of the Royal Canadian Air Force public relations branch. Because of the excellent arrangements made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation it was heard in Canada on Saturday morning, less than an hour after the first news of the landing was released. Hon. members will also have seen or heard the report by Ross Munro of the Canadian Press direct from Sicily, which followed shortly thereafter.
The assault upon Sicily marks for Canada the beginning of a new phase of the war. The Canadian army thus far has had few opportunities for active combat with the enemy. After Dunkirk, it became a living shield of defence against the threatened invasion of Britain. For a time, the first Canadian division was almost the only land force in the United Kingdom equipped to meet an invader. In this way, Canada's troops came to have the role of defenders of Britain. As successive divisions and reinforcements crossed the Atlantic from Canada, they were fitted into that role. For the three years since, the Canadian army in Britain has helped to maintain the security of Britain. All this has been in accordance with the strategy planned by those who have had the supreme direction of the war. From the outbreak of war, our government has adhered to the position that Canadian forces, in whole or in part, should be used where and when they can make the best contribution to the winning of the war.
The presence of our army in Britain has been a means of holding in western Europe, German forces many times its size. There were combined operations of a minor character in which Canadian troops were engaged during 1941 and 1942, but it was at Dieppe that units of the Canadian army in Britain first went into action against the enemy. Dieppe was a preparation for further combined operations. More recently, in order to gain experience in leadership under fire, officers and non-commissioned officers from our army in Britain went into battle with the British first army in Tunisia. That experience was also a part of the preparation for coming days.
As I said in announcing the present attack upon Sicily, the soldiers of Canada have gone
The War-Sicily

into battle exceptionally well trained, superbly equipped, keen and full of spirit, ready for offensive warfare.
In this new phase of the war for Canada, the army will share with the navy and the air force, the heat of combat and also inevitable sufferings and losses. We can expect no easy victories and no quick successes. Rather must we be prepared for fierce fighting and for a long struggle.
In thinking of the hour when a part of Canada's army would go into full scale action against the enemy, we have never imagined that there would be either an easy victory or an early victory. We realize that the enemy is strongly entrenched in his European fortress, and that so long as Hitler can draw upon a storehouse comprising occupied Europe, his forces can be provisioned for a lengthy war.
For the Canadian people, it is only human that the centre of our interest in the coming weeks should be the battle for Sicily, but all of us must careful to keep a sense of proportion. Let us not forget the much greater battle on the plains of Russia. In two years of fighting on the most titanic scale in history, the Soviet armies have inflicted grievous wounds on nazi military power. Without that weakening of German strength, the operations now in progress would have been foredoomed to failure, if indeed they could have been attempted at all. We should remember, too, that Sicily is only an outpost of Europe. Many other bridgeheads will have to be established before the final struggle even begins. These outer ramparts of nazi Germany are very strong. To reach the centres of nazi power on German soil will require a long and fierce struggle in all the occupied lands. The war, moreover, will not be ended when nazi power has been crushed. The military might of Japan will still have to be destroyed.
The battle of Europe is now joined. It must now be fought to a finish. It will be a hard fight. It will be a long fight. Something in our hearts, something emerging in the very soul of our nation must tell us that this is the greatest cause upon which we have ever been embarked.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat what I said to the press and over the radio on Saturday morning:
The fighting men of Canada, on land, at sea, and in the air, are risking their lives to preserve everything that all of us hold dear. They are joined together, in the cause of freedom, in the service of their fellowmen, and by an abiding attachment to their homeland. All Canada will share the pride of their loved ones in their courage and in their achievements. Of one thing we may be assured. They will not fail us. We

must not fail them. They will fight better for the assurance of the support of a united Canada. We, too, shall need all the strength that comes from a deep feeling of unity. I repeat, we must not fail our fighting men. In the name of Canada, I give to them the assurance that Canada will not fail her fighting men.
That assurance, I repeat this morning in this House of Commons on behalf of the parliament of Canada. Hon. members, I am confident, will all wish to join in this assurance.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think none of us in the House of Commons to-day will have failed to notice that the words which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has just uttered were received by a thoughtful, serious-minded and very solemn House of Commons. I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his statement with respect to the operations and developments on the Sicilian front. I hope, as he intimated, that from time to time when considerations of security permit the house will have the benefit of further advices and further news as it may reach the government.
Mere words seem feeble and futile in the midst of such moving events as have been taking place within the last day or two, particularly at this moment when Canada is moving past another historic milestone. I have no desire to do more at this time than to echo the words of the Prime Minister with reference to the Sicilian front. The fiercest challenge of all still lies ahead, and I am sure that the house and the country is a unit in the hope and prayer that our arms will be successful in the difficult and trying days that lie ahead, and that the loss of human life and the consequent sorrow and suffering shall be kept to the minimum that is possible so far as our armed forces are concerned.
Canada's heroism, Canada's bravery in the war which concluded just about a quarter of a century ago earned for her honour and renown throughout the world. In world war number two, Canada in the opinion of this house and of our people generally will parallel her achievements of a quarter of a century ago. We are proud of our boys who are on the Sicilian front to-day. May God bless them as they proceed with their perilous task of helping to liberate the enslaved and suffering peoples of Europe. Let this word go out to our forces in Sicily, as it goes out to our forces in other parts of the world: Canada backs you with everything we have. And may we in this house, Mr. Speaker, and) in Canada as a whole, so conduct ourselves as to be worthy

The War-Sicily
at home here of the services and the sacrifices which our men are making on the dangerous Mediterranean front.
I join with the Prime Minister in his statement that Canada stands united in this project, as in other projects that will follow-a united Canada with a keen and enthusiastic national feeling that we are playing our part in the interests of freedom, righteousness and Christianity in this conflict which we all hope will be brought to a victorious conclusion as early as possible.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have all listened this morning to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with feelings that the occasion upon which we meet is not only one of rejoicing that our men have made a successful landing on the Sicilian coast, but also one of great solemnity. I am sure that all members of this house can say to the Prime Minister, to the government and to the men engaged in perilous operations across the sea, that Canada is a unit behind them in this hour of great struggle and great sacrifice. As we think of the casualty lists that must come in, this house should consider carefully every possible step that can be taken to ease the blow for those who will suffer, both those who will lose loved ones and the men who will return to us maimed and sick. It is the duty of this country to make adequate preparation for all this, and far more than we have done up to the present time.
One other word I should like to say, and it is this: Canada's soldiers to-day are engaged in a great adventure against Italy. I have no doubt that as they move forward, grave military and political decisions will have to be made, both by the commanders and by governments. People looked with anxious eyes and some misgivings at the political developments in Algiers after North Africa was invaded. Canada is contributing her blood and treasure in this onset against Italy, and on behalf of many people in this country and, indeed, elsewhere, I ask that our government see to it that it play its proper part in anj political arrangements that are made, so that this war shall indeed become in every respect a war of liberation- not a war for the reestablishment of dynasties of the past or of governments that have lost the confidence of their peoples, but that in any understandings which are reached, Canada as a freedom-loving and democratic nation shall assist the long-suffering peoples of Europe to complete their liberation.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed met on a solemn occasion. One thing which impressed me in this morning's remarks more than any other one thing was the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made in the following words:
I give to them the assurance that Canada will not fail her fighting men.
The Prime Minister made those remarks on Saturday in his broadcast, to which I listened with great interest and with very serious thoughts. I recalled that while the last war was going on, many of the dearest friends that I have ever had, boys with whom I had sat in high school, normal school and university classes were pouring out their lifeblood and giving their glorious young lives in a war to make the world safe for democracy -note the word. I recall at about this stage of the conflict we had solemn assurances from a number of men, including statesmen, to the effect that when the boys came back they would return to homes for heroes. Alas, what did they come home to? Far, far too many of them were not even given hovels for heroes, much less homes. It is an exceedingly easy matter for us to stand in this house and promise great things lightly without indicating in any way how we propose to provide these great things. I trust the Prime Minister will not feel too greatly offended if I ask him to tell the country what Canada has already done for the heroes who have already been maimed and injured in this war. I ask him if he will stand in this house and tell this country what guarantee Canada has given to the men who bled at Dieppe. Just what has she done for these men? Has she failed them, or has she not? If it were fitting I could bring into this house at this moment stories that should make every hon. member of this house hang his head in shame, stories of what has already been done for the men who have done their bit and who have returned to this country thus far in the war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I do feel that if he has any statements that he thinks parliament should have, he should give them to parliament, but he should not make innuendoes nor should he, if I may be permitted-


Gordon Graydon: Not at this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -bring forward indirect insinuations or innuendoes which are certain 'to be greatly misconstrued, not only t.hrouehout this country but by the men who
The War-Sicily

are to-day offering their lives in the service of freedom. May I say to my hon. friend, who is usually thoughtful and careful about the occasions on which certain utterances should be made, that this is the last occasion on which he should make references of the kind he is making at the moment.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, a man who faces facts and says the truth about those facts makes himself exceedingly unpopular on any occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is not giving us facts. I ask him if he has any statement to make, any facts to give, to give them and be prepared to prove them. If he is unable to do that, he should not make innuendoes.


John Horne Blackmore: There is only one King I can say in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and that is this: I said a moment ago that on a suitable occasion I would bring in plenty of evidence. Now that the Prime Minister has challenged me, I shall-


Mr. GRANT:: You did not say that at all.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Once more the Liberals are at work at their usual game of belittling the people who are trying to tell the truth in this country and in this parliament. I do not propose to say anything undignified on this occasion, but at the same time I intend to say something that is worth saying. Idle, meaningless vaporizing is of no use on this occasion. If I have said anything up to the present time which either by implication or by meaning could be construed as offensive or as inappropriate on this occasion, I withdraw it; but I give assurance to the house that at a later time I shall reassert it, because so far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, as one member of parliament I do not propose to neglect my bounden duty to the people who sent me here and to the soldiers who are fighting our war.
May I go on, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister indicated that the boys would be disturbed. The Prime Minister does not need to be over-solicitous as to the feelings the boys will have. If he had gone through the trains, sat in the smokers and maintained silence as I have done in order to hear the boys express their feelings as they sprang out of their burning hearts, he would have no anxiety about a further growing of disturbance in their hearts. That disturbance has already been created by the things they see and know.

May I turn to one aspect of the question which is perhaps at least as important. I, along with hon. members of the house who have spoken and those who have not spoken, am filled with gladness and relief on this occasion. For almost four terrible years we have endured as a British race, humiliation, apprehension, loss upon loss, and danger of further bitter loss upon loss, not only from the enemy whom we are fighting but from some who ostensibly were not our enemies. I need not be further specific; hon. members understand. Now at least we are partly prepared, and our hearts swell with gratitude.
I know all hon. members' hearts are filled with gratitude to the God who controlled the waters at Dunkirk, the God who prompted Hitler's dangerous decision not to attack when Britain was perhaps helpless at his feet, the God who caused Hitler, perhaps unwisely, to attack Russia, bringing into the conflict on our side an ally who would absorb so much of the shock. For these great things, and many others which have been less spectacular, we should bow our heads and bend our knees in the deepest and most reverent gratitude to the God who has brought our fathers through many, many crises perhaps comparable to this one.
We should not forget on this occasion to express words of gratitude to the statesmen who have done all they possibly could to help to salvage the wreck of the structures in which we as British people have reimposed our trust for our security, men who realized how desperately our nation had been sold out by someone and who tried with all their power to save something from the wreckage. I mention among those Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain died, I believe, of a broken heart. I have no brief for Mr. Chamberlain. He passed through tragic experiences, but he had the courage to go to Munich to undergo what he did in order to save a few precious months, during which time we had some chance of recouping our loss of fighting power. I think Mr. Chamberlain did a thing for which history will be grateful, and I believe he is entitled at least to the thanks of one weak voice in the parliament of Canada on this historic occasion.
I wish at the same tftne to give thanks to the people who have given their all in order to hold back the invader while we gathered ourselves for the fight. I think of those who stood heroically in the path of the aggressor and who by their sacrifice impeded his progress and impaired his strength. I mention Poland, Poland could have given up easily. Poland knew what she was going to suffer. Yet, did the heroes of Poland falter, or did

The War-Sicily
hex statesmen, fail? Not for one .moment. They stood out, and did all that within their power lay. They laid on the altar their lives and their bodies, and by so doing did us a great service. Let us not for a moment forget about that great nation. And Norway must not go unhonoured1-or Denmark, or Holland or Belgium, or France which was bled white, and humbled and lowered in the dust. And little Albania, which stood courageously against Italy, is deserving of gratitude from us at this time, as is also Jugoslavia, who still fights on.. And Greeoe, who fell under the blows-utterly insupportable- but who fell fighting in a manner which will reflect even greater credit on the glorious record of Greece, despite the fact that her history is filled with glory.
Nor must we for one moment forget Great Britain. I had the privilege of being in Great Britain in the fall of 1941. Any attempt to convey an adequate appreciation of the magnificent courage of the ordinary housewife in Great Britain, not to mention the other citizens, would simply be contemptible by its inadequacy. We shall never cease to owe a debt to Great Britain for what she did in holding up the foe and absorbing the Shock of his ruthless and terrible power.
On this occasion the House of Commons, every member of it, should be filled with redoubled resolution-and I am sure they are- to redress the wrongs committed against the stricken peoples of Europe, and to redeem those stricken peoples, bind up their wounds, nourish and restore their vigour, reestablish them and set them on their feet again; give them another chance; and so that there may be rekindled in their hearts once more the fires of confidence, assurance and ambition; and so that they may express themselves in a vigorous and energetic national life through which they may make their contribution to the world. Let us convince those peoples of Europe, both by .precept and by example, that there is a way of establishing in this world security with freedom. May I point out that while at present there is talk of supranational government, international currency and stabilization schemes, we are far from giving assurance that the united nations contemplate any such way of establishing security with freedom.
Let us demand of Germany adequate guarantees that never again shall she be able to destroy the peace of man. Such guarantees will render Germany helpless-a .people of perhaps around eighty millions, helpless to defend themselves in a military sense and
helpless to defend themselves in an economic sense. Let us not forget for a moment that those people are just as proud and as sensitive and ambitious as we are. They are just as conscious of the danger which lurks around them. We must take precautions because of that. We must guarantee Germany also, in the hour of victory which is sure to come; we must guarantee to Germany freedom from want and fear.


Thomas Vien: I have allowed the hon. member to discuss many matters. I must point out to him, however, that there is nothing before the Chair, except that which may be contained in the Prime Minister's statement. I would not wish any hon. member to discuss matters extraneous to that statement.


John Horne Blackmore: On an occasion of this sort may I say I wish to treat your rulings and your opinion, sir, with all possible deference.	But I submit to you
that there has never been in the House of Commons an occasion like this one, and that there is therefore no precedent setting out what an hon. member shall say on such an occasion. If in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, it is unbecoming that an hon. member on an occasion of this sort shall discuss the kind of thing which I have been discussing, things which are of vital importance to those who are conducting the war on our side, and to those who are struggling in every way to oppose us, then I shall refrain from any further remarks on this occasion.


Thomas Vien: May I say in answer to the hon. member that there is an opportunity upon which matters of which the hon. member has spoken can be discussed. They might very well be discussed when the estimates for the Department of External Affairs are before the house. Just at this time however I think they are extraneous.


John Horne Blackmore: I bow to Your
Honour's ruling, and shall surely avail myself of the opportunity you have indicated.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Anne Marie Garon Brown.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Glendon Malqolm Robert MacCallum.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Beatrice Belodubrofsky Schiller.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	What stocks of new and unused agricultural machinery and implements are held in Canadian warehouses?
2.	Will such stocks be made available to municipalities where such machinery and implements are lacking for custom work in harvesting 'orage, grain and other crops this year?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The production, importation and distribution of farm machinery are under strict control in Canada to assure that the available supply is distributed to meet 'the most essential demands. Stocks of farm machinery are continuously arriving from Canadian manufacturers and from foreign sources and are being shipped out to meet essential demands. Available stocks are allocated to meet demands as quickly as possible. Because of the constant movement of stocks it is not possible to give totals on hand at any given time.
2.	Farm equipment is rationed under the direction of rationing officers stationed at 14 points throughout Canada. Total available supplies are allocated, in proportion to past requirements, to the different regions, so as to assure to each a fair share of available supplies. Where a condition of unusual hardship arises, the rationing officers may, moreover, direct the transfer of urgently needed equipment to meet special requirements. Every effort is being made to provide necessary machinery and implements for harvesting of this year's crops.


ALUMINUM COMPANY OF CANADA-PRICE OF ALUMINUM
Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the statement made by a responsible official of the United States government, that it was attempting to arrange a reduction in the price of aluminum from the Aluminum Company of Canada, what steps, if any, are being taken by the government of Canada to arrange for a similar reduction in price to firms using aluminum in connection with our war effort?


Mr. HOWE:: The price of aluminum from the Aluminum Company of Canada to firms using aluminum in connection with Canada's war effort has no relation to the contract price to the United States government. Prices quoted to Canadian firms are regarded as satisfactory by this department. Should the situation change, appropriate action will be taken,
{Mr. Blackraore.]


ALUMINUM COMPANY OF CANADA-PRICES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	(a) What price is the United States government, or any agency thereof, paying to the Aluminum Company of Canada, Limited, for aluminium ingots; (b) how is the price made up; (c) what is the base price; (d) what is the effect of any escalator clauses for the third quarter of 1943; (e) what was said effect for the second quarter of 1943?
2.	(a) What price is being paid to the above company for aluminium ingots purchased in Canada by the Canadian government or by Canadian manufacturers working on war contracts; (b) how is this price made up; (c) what is the base price; (d) what is the effect of any escalator clauses for the third quarter of 1943; (e) what was said effect for the second quarter of 1943?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The contracts for the sale and delivery of aluminum ingot to the United States was made directly between Metals Reserve Company (an agency of the United States government) and the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited and the payments for aluminum ingot are handled directly between the two parties concerned. No department of the Canadian government participates in the arrangements for such payments. The Department of Munitions and Supply is therefore unable to supply the information requested in question 1.
2.	The prevailing price for aluminum ingot to Canadian manufacturers is fixed at 18i cents per pound in carload lots. This price was arranged for Canadian consumption of aluminum ingot. It is not subject to any escalator clause or to any increase resulting from increased costs of production.
Note:	See Hansard, June 21, 1943, page
3829.


INTERDEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Is there an interdepartmental priority committee in the Department of Labour?
2.	If so, who are the members of said committee?
3.	Who is the chairman thereof?
4.	What are their duties and functions?
5.	Did the said committee compile the list of occupations covered by the compulsory order of May 4, 1943?
6.	If not, by whom was said list compiled?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This committee consists of: Sheldon Ross (chairman), acting chief, priorities division, national selective service; T. H. Robinson, assistant director, national selective service; J. G. Fogo. associate coordinator of controls

Questions
and labour liaison officer, Department of Munitions and Supply; R. G. Barclay, assistant director, employment service and unemployment insurance branch,Department of Labour; H. R. Kemp, economic adviser, economic research branch, wartime prices and trade board ; G. G. E. Raley, director of general supplies, supply division, wartime prices and trade board.
3.	Sheldon Ross, acting chief, priorities division, labour supply branch, Department of Labour.
4.	Under authority of clause (f) of section 505 of order in council P.C.246, January 19, 1943, national selective service civilian regulation, "The minister may in consultation with the Department of Munitions and Supply and the wartime prices and trade board, classify, in such manner as he deems expedient, occupations, industries, firms or establishments according to essentiality in the prosecution of the war." A committee composed of representatives of the Department of Munitions and Supply, the wartime prices and) trade board and the Department of Labour, which has come to be known as the interdepartmental priorities committee, meets regularly and deals with matters relating to priorities in accordance with the section of order in council P.C. 246.
5.	No.
6.	The list referred to was compiled in accordance with suggestions made by the members of the committee that had to do with the preparing of the compulsory employment transfer orders and the instructions in regard thereto. The lists for inclusion in the various compulsory employement transfer orders are approved by the national selective service advisory board before being issued.


NATIONAL SELECTIVE SERVICE
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Is there an experienced and representative policy-making board of permanent officials in selective service at Ottawa?
2.	If so, has this board access to information as to what is happening in all regional offices and all relevant statistics?
3.	Has this policy-making body been given the right to go anywhere to investigate actual working conditions ?
4.	If so, do they make such investigations?
5.	What steps are taken by the government to ensure that the records in the local and federal offices are efficiently and properly kept? Are same up to date?
6.	Are industries obliged to inform national selective service when vacancies in their plants are filled, or partially filled, and if so, what steps are taken to ensure that this is properly carried out?
7.	Does the director of national selective service hold any other public or private position?
8.	Has the present director of national selective service the power and authority to select his immediate assistants? If not, wrhy not?
9.	What steps are taken to ensure that employees in the local offices are given adequate support by the simplification of orders?
10.	Are there specialists appointed to each local office for the purpose of giving expert advice on job placement and job analysis?
11.	Has any committee been appointed by this government to make a catalogue of industry?
12.	If so, is said catalogue to be compiled in a manner similar to that of the United States?
13.	Has the government conducted any classes throughout Canada under the supervision of competent and specialized instructors to teach national selective service employees at the local offices the elementary principles of their jobs?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	A national selective service advisory board has been established under the chairmanship of the director of national selective service to advise the director in reference to the utilization of man-power and administration of selective service regulations and which includes the senior officers of the employment and selective service, as well as representatives of employers and labour, agriculture, the departments of munitions and supply, national defence, finance, wartime prices board, agriculture.
2.	The reports and statistical returns on employment and selective service operations prepared for head office use and other relevant data in respect thereto, which may be required from time to time, are made available to the advisory board as required.
3.	It is not the function of members of the advisory board to undertake personal investigations as members of the board. Employment and selective service officers including those officers who are members of the board undertake necessary investigations and meet with employers and employees and their representatives as appears advisable in the course of their duties.
4.	See answer to 3.
5.	Suitable records are maintained at head office, regional offices and local employment and selective service offices under the direction of the director of employment service and unemployment insurance. These records are maintained for current use.
Local offices are assisted and guided in their work by travelling supervisors operating from head office and regional office, part of whose duties is to see that required records are efficiently and properly kept up to date.
Questions

6.	Selective service permits are issued in triplicate. The local office holds one copy and hands two to the man. The man takes these to the employer who retains one and returns one to the local office. This returned copy is matched against the local office copy and thus there is an efficient check to determine that the vacancy has been filled. The copy is required to be returned within forty-eight hours, and, if not returned, the local offices make a practice of checking up to find the [DOT]eason why it has not been returned.
A telephone check is also made within a [DOT]easonable time on all referrals and more particularly on referrals to war industry.
7.	Yes. Deputy minister of labour.
8.	Associate directors of selective service are appointed by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, who is the minister responsible for the administration of selective service regulations.
9.	Necessary instructions governing the application of orders and the procedure to be observed in carrying out the administration of the same, are furnished to local offices by the director of employment service and unemployment insurance, and the regional superintendent of such services.
10.	In selecting personnel for local offices, the civil service commission does try to find persons who are experienced in placement and job analysis work, but, with the tremendous expansion of the offices and personnel over the last year, if becomes increasingly difficult to find trained personnel. It is not possible to designate for each office specialists for this purpose, but the offices are assisted and guided by travelling supervisors and advisers on staff training are also located at each regional office to direct the proper training of personnel.
11.	An industrial classification manual has been prepared and issued by direction of the Minister of Labour, for use of employment and selective service offices.
12.	This manual corresponds in its general nature to the standard industrial classification manual issued by the United States authorities.
13.	Necessary and suitable instruction in duties is given to employees of the employment and selective service administration.
From time to time local and regional schools are held to explain new regulations and procedures to the field staff, more particularly when there are any major amendments to the regulations.

women's voluntary services


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: 1.	Did the Minister of National War Services convene a meeting of women's voluntary services at any time during the last two weeks of June, 1943?
2.	If so, on what basis of representation was such meeting called?
3.	Were the following women, or any of them, invited to such meeting and did they, or any of them, attend: Mrs. W. E. West, Mrs. Paul Hamel, Miss Helen Doherty?
4.	If so, what association or body of women did they each represent?
5.	Is Miss Helen Doherty an official or member of the Women's Liberal Association?
6.	Were the travelling expenses of those attending paid out of public funds?
7.	If so, what was the amount of such travelling expenses?
8.	Were civilian and community welfare problems discussed at such meeting?
9.	Were the provinces consulted before such meeting was convened?
10.	Were the provinces invited to send representation to such meeting?
11.	Was the federation of mayors and municipalities consulted, and was that federation invited to send representation?
12.	Was the president of the National Council of Women consulted or invited to attend?
13.	Was the president of the Catholic Women's League of Canada consulted or invited to attend?
14.	Was the president of the Women's Institute of Canada consulted or invited to attend?
15.	Was the president of the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire consulted or invited to attend?
16.	Was the president of the Federation des Femmes Canadiennes Francaises consulted or invited to attend?
17.	Was the president of the Council of Jewish Women consulted or invited to attend?
18.	Was the chairman of women's war work of the Canadian Red Cross Society, or the chairman of the Salvation Army Red Shield consulted or invited to attend?
19.	Has the minister decided to send four women to England to enquire into the work of women's voluntary services?
20.	If so, who will select them and what will be the basis of their selection?
21.	Will they be representatives of Canadian women already organized and doing patriotic work?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	Yes. Business meetings of women's voluntary services were held June 28, 29 and 30, in Ottawa.
2.	Provincial; all provinces were represented.
3.	Yes, they attended in the course of their departmental duties.
4.	See answer to question No. 3.
5.	No.
6.	Travelling expenses will be paid by the department when claimed and duly supported by vouchers.

Questions
7.	All the accounts have not been submitted.
8.	The purpose of the business meetings was to discuss, with the assistance of representatives of other departments, the many wartime problems in which women's voluntary services are interested, including methods of assisting, upon request, organizations in their many such endeavours, whether national, regional or local in scope.
9.	See answer to question No. 8. As these were business meetings of the women's voluntary services, no others were consulted or asked to send representatives to the meetings.
10.	See answer to question No. 9.
11.	See answer to question No. 9.
12.	See answer to question No. 9.
13.	See answer to question No. 9.
14.	See answer to question No 9.
15.	See answer to question No. 9.
16.	See answer to question No. 9.
17.	See answer to question No. 9.
18.	See answer to question No. 9.
19.	It is hoped to send three or four women to the British isles to learn at first hand about the work of the sister organization, the women's voluntary services of the United Kingdom, who have offered entire cooperation.
20.	In consultation with the division of women's voluntary services, selection will be made by the Department of National War Services to the end of enabling tthe department to help advance the Canadian war effort.
21.	Individual selection will be made upon the basis of: power of observation, and experience or ability to make information obtained available to the department and thereby to all Canadian women, whether through their organizations or otherwise. It is not the intention that women's voluntary services should displace any other organization, but rather to reinforce and help all to carry out patriotic work.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	In connection with war-time houses built m Saint John, New Brunswick, (a) how many two-bedroom houses have been built; (b) how many four-bedroom houses have been built?
2.	What was the cost of each?
3.	How many sheds have been built, and what was the cost of each?
4.	What is the rental for each type of house?
5.	What are the total costs incurred by Wartime Housing Limited to date in connection with the Samt John houses?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) 50 H3 and H4; 15 H21 and H22. (b) 35 H13 and H14.
2.	For house construction only-H3 and H4 (2 bedroom), $2,641.88; H13 and H14 (4 bedroom), $3,403.33; H21 and H22 (2 bedroom), $2,740.16.
3.	32 double sheds at $235 each; 36 single sheds at $135 each.
4.	H3 and H4, $22 per month; H13 and H14, $30 per month; H21 and H22, $25 per month.
5.	$433,194.46 to April 30, 1943.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-SARNIA, ONT.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many permanent type houses have been erected by Wartime Housing Limited in Sarnia, Ontario?
2.	What is the cost per unit of each?
3.	Will these houses be sold to the occupants on deferred credit? If so, at what price per unit, and upon what terms?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No houses are completed at this date. Two hundred houses are under contract.
2.	Fifty single family dwellings Types H51 and H52-6 rooms.
Unit price
34 with brick above ground floor.. $4,195
5	with	concrete	block	above
ground floor	   3,515
5	with	bevelled	siding	above
ground floor	 3,515
6	with	asbestos	shingles	above
ground floor	 3,515
100 single family dwellings Types 1153 and H54-5 rooms.
68 with brick above ground floor 3,905 11 with concrete block above
ground	floor	 3,385
11 with bevelled siding above
ground	floor	 3,385
10 with asbestos shingles above
ground	floor	 3,385
50 single family dwellings Types H55 and H56-4 rooms.
34 with brick above ground floor 3,527 5 with concrete block above
ground floor	 2,984
5	with bevelled siding above
ground floor	 2,984
6	with asbestos shingles above
ground floor	 2,984
3.	These houses are constructed for rental only.

Questions as Orders jor Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


SELECTIVE SERVICE


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	How many men and women are serving as job placement experts in national selective service?
2.	What are their names and previous occupations?
3.	What experience and qualifications have each of these persons to fit them for the special work in the positions which they hold?
4.	Where is each of such persons now serving, and what is the official designation of their position?
5.	To what extent have these persons been used to train the staffs in local selective service offices ?



COST OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION-CENSUS- PLEBISCITE

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Under the following heads, (a) constituency expenses; (b) head office expenses; (c) printing; (d) total, what was the cost of, (1) national registration, 1940;	(2) decennial
census, 1941; (3) plebiscite, 1942?



HALIFAX WATERFRONT-FREIGHT HANDLERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland);
1.	Is there a "central despatching agency" or other service for the employment of men to handle freight at the waterfront, Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, is such agency or service operated by the Department of Labour, the Canadian National Railways or the national- harbours board?
3.	What is the cost to date of buildings or quarters, including equipment built and installed in connection with such agency or service?
4.	What staff has been employed, what is the name of each, and what salaries and expenses were paid to each in the year ended June 30, 1943?
5.	Were the agency or service, and the buildings or quarters and equipment in connection therewith provided at the request or with the approval of the longshoremen?

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	What is the land description of No. 37 flying school at Calgary, Alberta?
2.	What is the present acreage of this school?
3.	From whom and when vras it bought?
4.	What price per acre was paid for this land?
5.	What was the total price of said land?
6.	Has the government made any commitments or proposals regarding the extension of No. 37 flying school at Calgary?
7.	Are the present properties sufficiently large to fulfil present and future requirements of this school?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. QUELCH:: For a copy of reports and recommendations of the Canadian representatives wdio attended the conference at Washington dealing with the stabilization of international currencies, submitted to the Canadian government, any department thereof, or Bank of Canada.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Some days ago when this motion was called I promised to make a brief statement regarding participation by Canadian experts in the discussions which have taken place in Washington on international arrangements for the stabilization of currencies. Apparently, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) when he placed this motion on the order paper had in mind the meeting which took place in Washington in the latter part of April and which received some attention in the press at the time and later in the house itself. That meeting did not give rise to any reports or recommendations, beyond the confidential notes of the experts themselves for their own use. To have submitted a return in this sense, however, would have been incomplete and perhaps misleading, and it was for this reason I promised to make a statement in order that the house might have correct information in regard to developments in connection with this matter.
It will be recalled that early in April the government of the United Kingdom and the United States government each made public proposals which had been prepared by their experts for international arrangements to stabilize currencies after the war. These proposals did not carry government endorsement in either case but were put forward, in the words of the British announcement, "as a preliminary contribution to the solution of one of the problems of international economic cooperation after the war." For the convenience of members of this house, the two proposals were printed as a sessional paper. These two proposals, appearing at the same time, have naturally attracted great public attention, even though they represented the views only of certain groups of experts and not those of governments. They have been amongst the first concrete proposals to appear dealing with specific post-war problems. It was inevitable that the two plans would be compared and their similarities and differences analysed. In fact, there is a marked and encouraging similarity in the fundamental nature and objectives of the two proposals,

International Currency Conference
but they also reveal considerable differences in detail, in the form of mechanism proposed and in the manner of presentation.
Several of our Canadian experts had an opportunity of discussing the first diraft of the British proposals with the British experts in London last fall. Shortly after the publication of the American proposals, Hon. Mr. Morgenthau, secretary of the treasury, invited me to send some experts to Washington to discuss the American suggestions with the experts who had put them forward, I was glad to accept this invitation, and as a result several of our Canadian experts visited Washington for this purpose in the latter part of April. The purpose of these bilateral discussions was essentially to enable our officials to get a clearer understanding of the American proposals and to explore their significance. I understand that experts from other countries subsequently had similar bilateral conversations with the American officials. Our officials did not present any recommendations at these April discussions, or make any report upon them-other than confidential notes for their own use and a verbal report on the main points learned about the American proposals.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: There is no truth in the statement made in the house, I think on Friday, that Canada had put forward proposals?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not as government proposals; I am coming to that. I believe it was this meeting which the hon. member for Acadia had in mind in proposing the order for return which appeared in his name in the t otes and Proceedings of the house for June 16.
Some weeks after the April meeting, to be exact from June 15 to 18, Canadian experts again participated in an informal discussion with American officials on the same subject. At this meeting experts from a number of other countries who happened to be in Washington at the time also participated in the discussions. Our experts were invited to come prepared to make such comments on the American proposals, or such suggestions concerning them, as they wished to make on their own responsibility. After careful consideration, our officials decided that they could make their comments and suggestions most useful and effective if they prepared them in the form of an integrated alternative draft proposal supplemented by some general written observations on the purpose and significance of plans for post-war monetary organization.


John Horne Blackmore: Was there any suggestion that the British proposals would be considered at the same conference?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know that it was the subject of specific discussion, but any discussion would be impossible without taking into account the British proposals.
The government agreed to their doing so- that is, to our officials preparing comments and suggestions-on the express understanding that these proposals and observations represented only the views of the experts themselves and did not carry in any way the endorsement of the government. It has not as yet been possible for the government to give the necessary study to the principles and details of these highly technical international monetary proposals to enable it to commit itself on them at this stage and this, as I have indicated, is also the position of the British and American governments. However, it did seem eminently desirable that experts in various countries should have an opportunity of proceeding immediately to explore the possibility of working out together a sound plan of post-war international monetary organization, and it was for this reason that the government authorized its officials to proceed on their own responsibility to set down their ideas on this problem and to discuss them with the experts of other countries.
When, therefore, the Canadian experts attended the informal meeting in Washington in June, they took with them their own draft proposals and observations and upon request made them available to the other experts participating in the discussion. The Canadian proposals were presented in a form closely parallel to that in which the American plan as revised, had been presented, in order to facilitate discussion. This may give them a greater appearance of similarity to the American proposals than is justified by some rather significant differences in substance.
As the answer to the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Acadia, I propose now to table the document prepared by the Canadian experts and entitled "tentative draft proposals of Canadian experts for an international exchange union." In doing so, I wish to emphasize again that the document does not necessarily represent the views of this government, by which indeed it has not as yet been considered, and involves no commitment whatsoever as to the attitude which may later be taken by the government when formal international discussions are held to deal with the problem in question. It is intended merely as a constructive contribution

International Currency Conference
by some of our experts to the common, endeavour now being made in several countries to work out efficient international arrangements for dealing with foreign exchange and international monetary problems after the war. In order that the document may be available for study by all who may be interested, I have had it printed and have arranged for its distribution to hon. members and to the press.
I will not attempt to-day to summarize any of the principles or points of view embodied in the document nor to express any detailed views of my own concerning these proposals or their possible relation to other post-war matters. I would merely point out that the authors of this document have, in their preamble, made certain general observations on the importance of international monetary arrangements after the war and the relation of any such arrangements to other matters including commercial policy, international investment and international arrangements for relief and rehabilitation. These general observations should be carefully considered in order to see the draft monetary proposals in the proper perspective. International currency arrangements alone will not by any means solve our post-war international economic problems, but if they are well conceived and can secure the agreement of the nations, they should provide a basis for reaching satisfactory solution of some of the more difficult and more fundamental problems that will confront us.
It should be noted that the proposals that have been advanced by our experts, as well as those put forward by the Americans and the British, involve essentially an agreement between nations to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements for the establishment of an international monetary mechanism which will aid in the restoration and development of healthy international trade after the war; which will achieve a high degree of stability in international exchange rates, and which will not conflict with the desire of countries to carry out such policies as they may think appropriate to achieve, as far as possible, economic stability at a high level of employment and income. As the authors of the Canadian draft put it, "The organization should be international, not supranational." It is not intended to supersede our ordinary mechanisms of international trade and international payments, but to supplement and complete them on the intergovernmental level.


Victor Quelch: May I ask the minister whether these proposals which have been subtler. Ilsley.]
mitted on behalf of the Canadian officials have been endorsed' by the officials of the Bank of Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, not as officials of the Bank of Canada, and not by the Bank of Canada.


Thomas Vien: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the statement made by the Minister of Finance?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I assume that the hon. member will drop his motion.


Victor Quelch: Yes.
Motion dropped.



CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS OR INSTRUCTIONS

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: For a copy of all censorship orders, regulations or instructions issued under government authority since the outbreak of war.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I ask that this motion stand.


Thomas Vien: Stand.


Gordon Graydon: Surely the minister is not going to ask that this motion stand again. It has been up now for the last two weeks; he has asked on two occasions before that it stand, and surely he must now give some explanation of his asking that it stand again.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I believe it has not been standing two weeks. Twice last week I gave good reasons why I wanted it to stand.


Gordon Graydon: We are in the second week; that is what I mean.
Mr. LaFLECHE: That is right, but there is a difference. I again say that I want to see somebody about this. In the meantime I have asked other officials to get busy on doing this work. I think that in the interests of all concerned the motion should stand.


Gordon Graydon: Do I understand from the minister that he has given instructions in his department to have answers prepared, or has he done nothing while awaiting the return of the head of the censorship branch?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I said a moment ago that, awaiting the return of the gentleman with whom I wish to communicate, I asked the other officials to begin going through their files immediately in order to save time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When may we expect the return?

Motions jor Papers
Mr. LaFLECHE: The gentleman is supposed to be back this week. I shall see him and then make my reply here.


Gordon Graydon: It is important that we should have it for the debate on the minister's department.
Motion stands.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-TORONTO SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

Mr. ADAMSON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the Department of Munitions and Supply, or any official thereof, and L. Sefton, of the United Steel Workers of America, relating to conditions in the Toronto Shipbuilding Company yards.



ALLOTMENT OF CARS TO SASKATCHEWAN ELEVATORS

Mr. PERLEY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, recommendations and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the chairman of the wheat board or any member of the board, and any persons, committees or organizations, since May 15, 1943, protesting against the allotment of cars to elevators in the province of Saskatchewan under the proposed thirty car cycle system.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: I suggest that this motion pass with the usual reservation regarding privileged documents.


Gordon Graydon: What is that "usual reservation regarding privileged documents"? I should like to have it clarified, because the expression has been used in this house on several occasions, and now is a good time for the minister to tell us exactly what it means. It seems to me that if there are privileged documents it should not be necessary for the minister to say anything about it; automatically they would not be produced, and I am suspicious when a minister puts these reservations into the answer he gives. He ought to explain what he means.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think there is considerable merit in what the leader of the opposition has just said. It occurs to me that possibly I am over-careful in mentioning that there may be privileged documents. I know of none, but I spoke as I did for fear that when the examination was being made of all documents and correspondence there might be some memoranda passing between officials of my department and myself, which are recognized as privileged documents.


Gordon Graydon: That is what the minister had in mind?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is what I had in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This motion does not call for any communications between interdepartmental bodies, such as the minister and the wheat board; it refers to communications between the minister, the chairman of the wheat board or any member of the board, and outside persons who have been protesting-


James Angus MacKinnon: "Any persons."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot imagine that any of these communications would be privileged.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: It covers the advisory committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: Do I understand the minister to say that without a doubt he will table all communications other than certain ones which passed between himself and the wheat board?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am quite sure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle knows that all the documents concerned will be tabled.



OLD AGE PENSIONS-REPRESENTATIONS FROM MANITOBA

Mr. KNOWLES:: 

SELECTIVE SERVICE


Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the Minister of Labour, the director of national selective service or any other person in the national selective service branch, and the Vancouver Restaurant Owners' Association or any person or persons acting on behalf of the said association, from the date of issue of the first compulsory employment transfer order to the present date, regarding the essentiality of employment in the restaurant industry.



RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHIEFS OF STAFF, NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1927

Mr. BRUCE:: 1. For a copy of reports or recommendations, whether formally made in writing or in course of correspondence in 1927, by Major-General

War Labour Board

J. H. MacBrien while he was Chief-of-Staff of the Department of National Defence, to the then Minister of National Defence.
2.	Of reports or recommendations, whether formally made in writing or in course of correspondence in 1927, by Major-General H. C. Thacker while he was Chief-of-Staff of the Department of National Defence, to the then Minister of National Defence.
3.	Of reports or recommendations, whether formally made in writing or in course of correspondence in 1927, by Lieutenant-General A. G. L. McNaughton, while he was Chief-of-Staff of the Department of National Defence, to the then Minister of National Defence.


Mr. RALSTON:: I would ask my hon. friend to drop this resolution. The resolution calls for documents which, as he knows, and the house knows, are highly confidential. I do not consider it in the public interest that they should be produced. I have not gone over any of them but I do not think that documents of that kind from the chief of staff to a minister should be produced. Secondly, they are only sixteen years old, which would require delving into the archives. In the third place, one of them, with respect to General MacBrien, would cover all reports for six months, and the other by General Thacker would cover all the reports for nearly two years. The paragraph with regard to General McNaughton is of course wrongly dated, because he did not become chief of the general staff, as I remember, until 1929. I therefore submit that it is not in the public interest to produce these documents, and I ask that the motion be dropped.


Mr. BRUCE:: In view of what the minister says I am willing to drop Nos. 2 and 3 and, to help his department, I would restrict No. 1 to correspondence and recommendations made in January 1927 only.


James Layton Ralston: The same objection would apply.


Thomas Vien: Dropped.



NATIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Is the Minister of Labour yet in a position to indicate when the report of the national war labour board in connection with recent hearings on general labour problems will be ready for release? Is it the intention of the government to initiate any legislation this session in the event of the board's finding that a new code concerning labour relations in Canada is desirable and essential?
CMr. Bruce. 1


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I am advised that the board is now considering the voluminous evidence that was taken at its hearings, but I have no knowledge as to when the report will be handed in.


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister any idea as to whether it may be a month or two months, or when the report will be submitted?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not the slightest idea.


Gordon Graydon: In that event, I presume we need not expect any legislation based upon that report this session.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course, that is a matter of government policy. I do not know. I cannot prejudge the report; I do not know what is in it.


Gordon Graydon: I was not asking the minister to prejudge the report. I had indicated that in the event of the evidence being of such a character I should like to know whether we might expect the initiation of legislation this session.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a matter of government policy.



SELECTIVE SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Under the new selective service set-up with regard to boys of sixteen and seventeen, is it intended to move the boys away from their homes or will they be kept in their own community?


Humphrey Mitchell: The circumstances would determine whether they would be moved away or not, but I think my hon. friend can rest assured that the national selective service officials will use good judgment in any directions given.



THE LATE SIR HARRY OAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to seek information from the Minister of National War Services on a point which was raised editorially by a prominent newspaper this morning. I have already sent a copy of the Montreal Gazette to the minister at his request and I believe

Privilege-Mr. Grant
he has read the editorial, which is entitled, "Why the Censorship?" Were the facts surrounding the death of Sir Harry Oakes in the Bahamas delayed in publication through censorship? What .part, if any, did the Canadian censorship authorities play in connection with the delay in publication of the mews, and what were the underlying reasons for the delay?
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): I am grateful to the leader of the opposition for having sent me intimation of the questions he would put. He was also good enough to let me see a copy of the editorial page of the publication in question. I had a few moments to make inquiries about the matter before the house began, its sittings this morning, and I was told definitely that nothing concerning the death of Sir Harry Oakes was submitted to Canadian censorship. I suggest to the horn, gentleman that the article in question seems to indicate clearly a censorship other than Canadian.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does not say so.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Vincent Grant: I rise to a question of privilege. On July 8, at page 4533 of Hansard, after the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) had made a statement, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) rose and said:
I have only to observe that that was not the case with respect to the government's man-power policy in the early stages. 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?
Then some hon. member said "Order," and then the member for York-Sunbury replied:	"That is what happened." Then
another member of this house said: "He has more guts than you have."


Gordon Graydon: Where is the question of privilege?


Thomas Vincent Grant: I am coming to it. The hon. member for York-Sunbury replied:
I would take somebody else's judgment besides yours.
Then the member to whom he referred replied, "You are all guts." That ended the
delicate anatomical discussion, but the last interjection did not appear in Hansard of that day. I know the press gallery heard it because it appeared in the Journal and Citizen the following day. I know the reporter heard it because he looked around. I know the member for York-Sunbury heard it because he laid down his scalpel. I know all members in this house at the time heard it.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. gentleman is rising to a question of privilege with respect to something that occurred, as he says, on July 8. This is now July 12. There was an opportunity before this for him to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Just as usual-a little burlesque.


Thomas Vien: I would point out that a question of privilege must be raised immediately after the breach of privilege has taken place, or as soon thereafter as the member has an opportunity of bringing up the matter. I do not know what breach of privilege the hon. member complains of. I do not think what he has said gives rise to any question of privilege.


Thomas Vincent Grant: The question is that I desire to have a correction made in Hansard, because when a sentence is altered or a few words left out entirely, the whole meaning is apt to be changed to the disadvantage of some and the advantage of others. I am not saying who is responsible.


Thomas Vien: I wish the hon. member would come to his question of privilege.


Gordon Graydon: There may not be any question of privilege.


Thomas Vincent Grant: The question is that the last remark was left out of Hansard entirely.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member is taking the position that something has been left out of Hansard which should have been inserted, will he kindly state what should have been inserted.


Thomas Vincent Grant: The words that should be inserted after the interjection by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) are the words which were said and which are not in Hansard, namely, " You are all guts."


Gordon Graydon: Who is supposed to have said that?



WEARING OF COATS IN THE CHAMBER DURING HOT WEATHER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops):	Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is a question of privilege-
4634	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
Thomas Vien: If the hon. member is in doubt he should make sure before he raises a question of privilege.
Mr. O'NEILL: How can I be sure, Mr. Speaker? I notice in to-day's paper that yesterday in one of the churches in this city a clergyman suggested from the pulpit to the male members of his congregation that they remove their coats and be comfortable. That was done without any disrespect in the house of the Lord, and I suggest that the same thing might be done here. I know that the government and the people of this country would welcome the news that the members of this house had taken off their coats, rolled up their sleeves and gone to work.


Thomas Vien: I notice that the hon.
member did not include the Speaker. I would rather deprecate his suggestion.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 8, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Administration and passport office, $270,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, on Friday the house was in committee of the whole on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. To-day there are items pertaining to the Department of External Affairs which appear in connection with the war appropriation bill, and it is the latter items I propose to take up at the moment. What I would suggest, if it is agreeable to hon. members, is that as the two discussions will relate to the same subject hon. members should feel free to discuss external affairs generally under the first item that will be before us in the war appropriation bill, just as if that were the item that appears under external affairs in the estimates. Hon. members will realize that there are reasons at this time why I am anxious to get through the estimates which relate to external affairs, both those under the war appropriation bill and in the ordinary estimates as soon as possible, without any desire to limit discussion upon them. It might facilitate matters for all were it understood there could be a wide range of discussion at the outset, not limiting that discussion to one particular item.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in this discussion at this late stage in the session, and would not have done so had it not been for one or two observations which fell from the lips of certain members of the house on Friday last. I shall be as brief as I possibly can, and say what I have to say with celerity, because I realize that the atmosphere of this city and maybe of this chamber is not conducive to calm and philosophic consideration of a matter so important as Canada's foreign policy.
Before I proceed further I should like to associate myself -with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition with relation to the great world events that are now taking place. May I say regretfully that I was sorry to hear a note interjected into that discussion -which showed at least-I want to be careful what I say-an element of a lack of appreciation of the gravity of the time. There is a time and, later on, I have no doubt there will be a place where complaints against the policy and conduct of the government may be made during the course of this debate. As I sat here and listened to the observations of certain hon. members I could not help but reflect they were not fully seized of the gravity of the situation which confronts the Canadian army and the Canadian people. I say that in a kindly way, because I think we ought to have a sense of proportion and a sense of propriety. I am aware that some people do not have that sense of propriety. We had an exhibition of it a few minutes ago from the hon. member for Kings with respect to myself. I could see that he wanted to make a play on words against me.


Thomas Vincent Grant: A guilty conscience needs no accuser.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And in that way to show his dislike of me. It does not make a bit of difference to me w'hat the hon. member thinks of me. He will disappear from the political scene in due course as men of his calibre usually do.
In reverting to the subject matter of the debate, foreign affairs, I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) on the forceful and thoughtful address which he delivered on Friday morning. Hon. gentlemen may not agree with all his premises, they may not agree with all his conclusions, but they will agree that he spoke the mind of a large number of Canadian people, and that he offered to the people of Canada constructive suggestions which are well worthy of their consideration. I personally desire to associate myself-and I

War Appropmition1-External Affairs
speak only for myself-with five of the six proposals which he made near the conclusion of his speech. I shall not cover the same ground or dilate on the virtues of the proposals which he made. I should like to reserve to myself consideration of the fifth proposal, namely, that Canada should become a member of the pan-American union. I should like to have a little more light and a little more information on the whole position before I give my personal adherence to that proposal. I know there are advantages and disadvantages. I understand that one of the reasons why Canada has never been invited, apart from seeking, to membership in the panAmerican union so-called, is that we were part and parcel of the British empire, and perhaps on the theory, the unfounded theory, that Canada was not a self-governing dominion. However, I should like, as I say, to reserve to myself consideration of all the aspects of the proposal as to how it might affect this country.
On Friday I listened with a great deal of attention to the Prime Minister's statement of Canada's foreign policy, if one may so term it. I do not think he carried us very much farther than he has carried us on previous occasions, particularly in his speech of the 19th of March last in his review of the progress of the war. Of course I am more or less in agreement as to the main topic discussed by him, and by the same token I suggest to the hon. members and to the people of Canada that because we are in the war and because we are making now a great contribution to the war-I do not want anybody to say that I have denied that we are making a great contribution to the war-Canada must of necessity take a greater interest in foreign affairs with respect to the whole world. It will no longer do to say that we are being merged into nationhood and that we are a great world power and then retire into an ivory tower and say we will have no commitments, we will not tie ourselves up to this particular sphere or that. Great power, a great status in the affairs of the world, particularly in a war era, brings of necessity great responsibilities. Canada, if she is to call herself a nation, and an adult nation, must assume those responsibilities.
I have listened on many occasions to the Prime Minister's declarations with respect to foreign affairs, and have always thought that they were largely negative. I believe he summed up the position of his government and gave us his philosophic view with respect to this matter in the concluding paragraph of
the speech which he made on the 19th of March. I am now quoting from page 1397 of Hansard:
When this country went into the war it did so as a result of the action of this parliament taken on its own account, a decision reached in accordance with what it believed to be and certainly was the will of the people of Canada.
There is no quarrel with that; we all agree. But I call particular attention to the last sentence of the paragraph:
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 selfgoverning communities-the dominions and the United Kingdom included.
That is a positive assertion of the government's foreign policy, and that is as far as it goes. In the past if we have had a foreign policy, as I appreciate it, such as it was, it was composed of two negative positions and one positive position. The first negative position has been that we shall have no commitments at all. The second negative position, as I appreciate it, has been that we shall watch and wait to see what happens. Without desiring in any way to be offensive -and I do not wish to interject a harsh note at all-these two negative positions add up to isolation. That has been the guiding star of the Canadian foreign policy of my right hon. friend in the period in which he has been Prime Minister or leader of his party, down to the time of the outbreak of the war. I submit that is a fair interpretation. I do not think my right hon. friend will disagree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do, most absolutely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then, of course, we will agree to disagree. But my attitude is this: the Prime Minister's fundamental policy of foreign affairs, with the one exception that I referred to, has been negative; it has been based on the assumption that this country shall make no commitments whatever with anybody with relation to our foreign affairs, and to me at any rate that spells isolation.
The third, that which I call the positive position which the Prime Minister has assumed, is that in season and out of season he has emphasized, and many times I think he has over-emphasized, the question of Canada's status within the British empire. No one has challenged the fact that Canada has equality of status within the British empire. It is true that was not always so, but we have had an evolution resulting from
4636	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
the growth from a colonial status up to the time that Canada went into the war of 1914 of her own volition, when she took a man's part in world affairs with respect to Europe. I do suggest to the Prime Minister that no matter what imperial conferences may have said and done, the beginning of nationhood and equality of status for Canada within the realm of the British empire was established by Sir Robert Borden and by the Canadian forces at the time of the last conflict. We asserted ourselves at the peace conference which followed the last war. We were signatory to the Versailles treaty, and the evolution was then complete and accepted by the whole world. All that remained to be done was to put into concrete form, as wTas done subsequently, a declaration of the status contained in the Balfour declaration. That was subsequently crystallized as a declaratory statute in the statute of Westminster, which, I believe, went a little further in respect of the section which refers to the Colonial Laws Validity Act.
So that Canada evolved as a self-governing nation in the course of time by reason of the trend of events, not by any statutory provision. She evolved as a self-governing nation by taking her place, her proper place, within the sphere of empire. And to be harping-perhaps a better word would be dwelling-upon this question of equality of status is just putting up a straw man and knocking him down. To me, coupled with the isolationist position which the Prime Minister I believe always occupied up to the time of the last war, the two together tend toward separatism. If I should wish any confirmation of my views in relation to this matter I should have only to refer to the speech of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) in the house on Friday last, and to other speeches made by the hon. member.


Mr. MacNICOL:: One cannot attach any weight to them at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I might just as well deal with the position as I see it, here and now. Some sessions ago the hon. member made a speech in the house in which he said I had assumed-and I believe he was referring more particularly to me-that I was more British than the British. Well, I never claimed to occupy any such position. I am a Canadian first, as I believe he is. But since the war began, and particularly since Dunkirk, believing as we do in the ideals and principles which actuated the British when they entered this war in

September 1939, knowing that as a result of what happened at Dunkirk Great Britain stood alone, as she did for many months; believing that she then assumed and still retains the moral leadership of the world- having regard to these facts we could not do anything else, it would be unbecoming for us to do anything else than to support Great Britain-indeed it was our bounden duty- during the whole period of the war. And I believe that government policy has been directed along that line.
But that is not the philosophy of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, protest as he will-and I know he hedged in his speech last Friday in respect of his previous utterances-


Mr. CLAXTON:: There was no hedging at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is a matter of opinion. I assert it and the hon. member denies it. We shall have to let it go at 'that. I am not going to take the time to analyse his speech. But I have always understood that the hon. member belonged to that school of isolationists and separatists which is most vocal in the country, whose chairman is Professor Frank Scott of McGill university, and to that school of thought of which Mr. Underhill of Toronto university is chief spokesman.


Brooke Claxton: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: May I ask if there is
any evidence anywhere, at any time, of my ever having belonged to any school of isolationism?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a fair question, and I am bound to tell the hon. member that I am endeavouring to locate the evidence at this time. I have not got it before me now, but I believe it is there.


Brooke Claxton: There is no such evidence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And I
believe it is there in a statement made in the Winnipeg Free Press, in which the hon. member's name is included among a list of one hundred men who demanded certain things with respect to Canada's foreign policy.
The hon. member told us on Friday that in 1937, I believe it was, he was one of those who demanded the removal of Mr. Chamberlain from the prime ministership of Great Britain. I just wonder at the, shall I say nerve, of a group of people in Canada who

War Appropriation-External Affairs
would tell the people of England who ought to be their prime minister. What would we in Canada say if some .public man in England were to tell us that we ought to get rid of Mackenzie King, and get rid of him once and for all?


Mr. MARTIN:: Some people in Canada
tried that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Brooke Claxton: Is the hon. member asking me to answer?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: At that time I advocated our taking-and we had to take, of course- precisely the course which we took in 1939.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not my information. I am bound to say I have not the evidence here, but I think it is available. I have been told it is available, showing that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who I know is an isolationist, was at that time in favour of the neutrality of Canada. K he denies it, then I accept his word.


Brooke Claxton: I deny it absolutely.
There is no trace of evidence that I was an isolationist, as my hon. friend has said, at any stage. There is the fact that I advocated from 1931 on, Canada's full participation in
all the agencies which would make for international peace, security and prosperity. That is I think the exact opposite of being an isolationist.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the hon. member one of those who adheres to the position of Professor Underhill of the university of Toronto who declared some months ago, perhaps some years ago, at least prior to this present war, that if Britain should ever again be engaged in a European conflict and require aid, Canada apparently should thumb her nose at her? That is a matter of record. These gentlemen meet together at Lake Couchiching and they give utterance to sentiments that are shocking to Canada in these perilous times. No matter what the hon. member may profess to express at this time, he does not express the views of the Canadian people with respect to foreign policy. He did not do so in a speech which he made in another place and which is unreported; he did not express the views of loyal Canadians, nor did he express them on Friday when he took the position which he did. I repudiate the suggestion that he speaks for me or for the people who think like me.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. gentleman has suggested that in some speech upon which he cannot put his fingers I have expressed views which are not loyal. I submit that that suggestion is unparliamentary. My. hon. friend cannot find such a speech because there is no such speech.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I may have it after the recess. I have been very frank and suggested that while I asked for it I could not find it in the library before I came here, but I am told that it is there.


Brooke Claxton: I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that remark.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the specific remark that I am asked to withdraw?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has suggested that I made a statement showing my disloyalty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that the statement on foreign policy to which the hon. gentleman gave utterance does not represent the views of the majority of Canadians, and it certainly in no sense represents my views. If it is intended to represent the philosophy and policy of the hon. gentleman, so far as I am concerned I do not belong to that school of isolationists and separationists. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George
4638	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
is the understudy in the privy council office of the Prime Minister, and I should) like to know if what he said on Friday represents the views of the Prime Minister. It would be interesting to know if the Prime Minister accepts the views to which the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George gave utterance.
I should like to refer briefly to the Prime Minister's statement. I was struck by the fact that the Prime Minister indicated that while Canada had been consulted in connection with one major sphere of war time activity, namely, the production of supplies and war materials, we had never been consulted with respect to war strategy or the carrying on of the war. That is to say, we were not taken into the councils of the United Kingdom and the United States with respect to what should take place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think I ever made a statement of the kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the inference I have drawn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is drawing an inference-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
entitled to draw any inference I like. That is my interpretation. I gathered from what the Prime Minister said under interrogation that while we had been consulted with respect to war supplies and war materials, we as a world *power, if we are to call ourselves such, had not had any part or control in determining world war strategy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a wrong inference altogether; that is an unwarranted and wrong inference.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) Is there anybody within sound of my voice who believes for one minute that if we had been informed beforehand of what was proposed to be done at Casablanca, the Prime Minister would have neglected to tell us about it? There is not much that he neglects to tell us that reflects his own glory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend suggest that, before Casablanca I should have told this House of Commons of the strategic proposals that were to be put forward at that time?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I
never made any such suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what my hon. friend is saying.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What I did suggest was that while Canada was taking a major part in certain aspects of the war,

and somewhat belatedly in connection with armed forces-I am not placing any fault on anybody for this-we have never been consulted with respect to war strategy or world war planning with regard to fighting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is noh-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a fair inference to draw from the fact that if we had been consulted I am certain we would have been told about it. There is not much that these gentlemen ever miss in telling about their own glory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will read the speech I made at the opening of the session on the address, he will find there specific reference to the extent to which we wTere consulted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to refer to the speech made by the Prime Minister on Friday at the opening of this debate. He was referring to post-war concepts, and I should like to quote from page 4558 of Hansard, as follows:
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.
With that last statement I am in agreement. You could not get far with an unwieldy body; progress would be hopeless. Then he goes on to say:
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.
I wish the Prime Minister had enlarged on that proposal. Was that statement based upon any consultation that has developed between united nations representatives, or was he flying a kite to see what the effect would be?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the position I have taken right along.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so. I think the Prime Minister was putting forth a compromise position between joining up with one side or joining up with the other in the peace conferences or post-war consultations that will be held. Canada has made a great contribution to the war, although not as great as any of the big four, if I may use that term. She could not hope, I should think, to play a part as great as any one of the four in the consultations that will take place.

War Appropriation-External Affairs
That conception has a good deal of merit, but I wish he had explained just what he means by the term he used. I noticed two editorials, one in the Montreal Gazette and the other in the Montreal Star of Saturday, commending the position which the Prime Minister indicated. But the Prime Minister did not say enough; he did not let the Canadian people know what was in his mind. Is he waiting for the reaction thereto?
Canada has become a nation by reason of the contribution which she has made. Britain has the moral leadership of the world, and she won it as a result of standing almost alone, yea, in fact, alone, at and after Dunkirk. They are our blood brothers over there. On the other hand there is the geographical propinr quity of Canada and the United States. Canada, it has been said, has been the intermediary between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the interpreter of one to the other. I am not sure that that has worked out in practice, though I think to a degree it is true. But if the testing time comes, and we have to choose between the one and the other-and I pray God for the sake of the general good of the world, of peace among nations, and of the great world which we would like to see afterwards, we shall not have to do that-I say, if the testing time comes, then I tell my right hon. friend that so far as I am concerned-and I would not pretend, like the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, to speak for the nation-my vote and my voice, my advice to the Canadian people in so far as it may be asked or heeded, will be, " Let us stand by the empire."
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Mrs. CORA T. CASSELMA1N (Edmonton East): I wish to make just a few comments on the foreign affairs of Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a masterly statement the other day and again this morning, setting forth what Canada hoped to do and what she is doing at the present time. He told us something of the future.
To be brief, I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have already been made by the Prime Minister and by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton). There are three main points I would like to emphasize as regards Canadian policy. The first is that Canada's policy should be Canadian, that is, a policy to which
the great majority of our people subscribe and to which they give loyal support, even though they may differ in details.
No matter what hon. members may say of a lack of policy in the past, Canada was one of the few nations which answered "present" w'hen the hour struck and when the aggressor sent his hordes into neighbouring territory. It was the United Kingdom, the Dominions and France alone, without being themselves invaded, who joined in this war against the axis powers, and they did so because of a principle for which they stood and because of their enlightened self-interest, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St George put it on Friday. They saw their own interest threatened. We acted then on a Canadian policy.
Secondly, Canada, as a free autonomous nation within the empire, should work in close association with other parts of the British commonwealth of nations and1 with the United States, because their outlook is so much the same as ours. It is expressed pretty well in the Atlantic charter. The charter may be too idealistic, but it shows to what we can work, and1 if we know the goal to which we are going we are less likely to be lost in the maze of complicated, intricate international conditions. The commonwealth is linked in a common ideal personified in the crown, and I think we realize it now more perhaps than ever.
A distinguished journalist, Mr. Percy J. Philip, who knows his history, had this to say quite recently:
When people talk glibly of a better world organization I sometimes wonder what they have to offer, what will surpass in gallantry, in liberality, in creativeness and in courage the living organization that has withstood for the second time in thirty years the challenge of the greatest military power in the world and, in doing so, has lost not a single essential freedom.
The third point for a Canadian policy, it seems to me, is that our own country and peace is wrapped up with the security and peace of the world community, Mr. Philip went on to speak of a new democratically organized community of nations.
Whether we like it or not, Canada is caught in a historical and geographical position that becomes more and more central with the growth of air power. We cannot escape that. I believe strongly that only a system of collective security can prevent another world war within this century'. It will not prevent all war. It may itself make war to uphold law and order. Yet if it is not ready to do that, to go to that length to back up its decisions, with force perhaps, any evil-minded aggressor may again upset the world's peace.

4640	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
In this era of mechanized power no nation, however strong, can hope to stand alone. We recognize that the ideal of world peace is comparatively new. Nation has warred with nation since the beginning of time, and periods of no war have been very few and scattered. But the ideal is here, and I feel that the League of Nations moved us just a little bit closer to that ideal. The league was meant to control war, and what a world it started out in! Of the seven great powers, the United Kingdom, with the dominions and France, were the only two who belonged to it throughout the years. The United States never belonged, and Russia went through the throes of a bloody revolution and its aftermath. Italy was very soon dominated by a man who preached war as an instrument of international policy. Germany belonged for a few short years, and Doctor Stresemann's death was a tragedy for us all. I do not think that Japan ever understood any of the principles that underlay the League of Nations and what it hoped to do in the score of years that intervened between these two great wars. Yet even now there are nineteen nations paying dues to the League of Nations, and the International Labour Organization.
I wish to quote from a statement of June 15 of this year, by Mr. P. G. Waterson of the League of Nations, of Princeton, where one of the divisions of the league is still in exile, just as the International Labour Office is here in Montreal. With regard to the payment of dues this is what 'he says:
During the course of 1942 the following countries made contributions: Australia. Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, France, Ireland, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the Union of South Africa, United Kingdom.
I have not as yet received full information regarding the present year but believe the payments have also been received from Mexico and Portugal. In the above I have not included states members of the international labour organization but not members of the league. The regular payers among them comprise the United States of America, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela. In addition, the United States of America also contribute to the league in respect of their participation in the work of the opium section.
That is signed by Mr. P. G. Waterson. These countries therefore must see a hope even yet in the league, and we may yet build on what has survived of that league ideal. We do not know what form the new peace treaties will take, but here is evidence of willingness to cooperate in the attempt to bring peace and security and order out of chaos through a collective system. I am /Mrs. Casseiman.]
not arguing for a renewal of the league in the form in which it stood. It is still too early to make any blueprints. The war itself will shape the future, will create and harden international relationships. There is a tremendous outpouring of hate now against Germany in the occupied countries. Why would there not be? Contemptuous, coldblooded, calculated cruelty must engender hate. But on the other hand I do not think there has ever been such good-will among some of the powers of the world that are now allied as there is at the present time; and after all, good-will is a pretty good basis for any international cooperation.
I wonder if we could capitalize on that good-will now. Could we not, while the realization of what we owe is strong upon us, begin to shape that cooperation now? I believe it is being shaped quietly and efficiently, through such negotiations as the Prime Minister has put before us. Let me indicate the desire for cooperation. Take the British empire, or the commonwealth, whichever you call it. Do you not think that our allies are more friendly now than they were back in 1938 and 1939? They now see the issues at stake which they did not see in 1939. They have seen the British people stand up alone after the defeat of France to take tremendous punishment with unbowed heads and fearless hearts. Do not more people now realize the truth in the words of General Smuts when, referring to the empire, he said:
This greatest human experiment in political organization, this precedent and anticipation of what one hopes may be in store for human society in years to come.
It is not that we think the commonwealth has failed that we advocate a wider order. Surely our allies see that British imperialism is a thing of the past.
What about Russia? Has there ever been a time in the last quarter of a century when Russia's stock stood higher? We have evidence that Russia's suspicions of her allies are much less to-day than they have been at any time in the last quarter of a century. That may be shown by the twenty-year pact of friendship between Great Britain and Russia, and by Russia's recent dissolution of the Comintern. One of the ways by which Russia thought she might bring about better conditions for everybody in all the countries in the world was through the communist idea. It was revolution in Russia and world revolution, in theory. In France, before its fall, its last parliament contained I believe seventy communist members. But the Russian nation has dissolved the Comintern as if it now

War Appropriation-External Affairs
thought that there might be better ways of collaborating than through a revolution. Russia's stock stands high.
What about China? We know now what China learned years ago, the strength and barbarity of Japan. The British, like the Chinese, have stood up under the bombing of their cities. A new bond there! We must hold fast to the comradeship which has been established in the face of the common enemy and the common danger.
In the United States we find a new realization of her position and responsibility as a great power. This is shown in the public utterances of President Roosevelt and other outstanding men. I quote just this one paragraph from a speech made in April of this year by Sumner Welles:
And I am even more convinced that unless the American people are willing to assume their fair share of responsibility for the maintenance of peace in the world of the future, by joining in the exercise of powers when they may be determined by international agreement to be necessary, and by participating in such other forms of international cooperation as may effectively prevent the rise of economic or political dangers, the peace of the world cannot be maintained.
Take the state legislatures. A report in the press of July 3 states that in thirteen of the legislatures of the United States resolutions have been introduced and agreed upon to the effect that they are convinced that the sequence to victory in this world war must be international organization of all nations to lay the foundations of peace. These resolutions differ from one state to another, but thirteen legislatures of the United States have adopted such a resolution. Those states are: North Carolina, New Jersey, Montana, Maryland, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Florida.
It may also have been noticed that the Republican party, somewhat isolationist but not entirely, has set up the Republican Postwar Policy Association, which according to the press is making international collaboration a part of its programme.
What about our other allies? The mutilated, occupied nations of Europe, some of which were neutral back in the first great war, have a different idea now I think of how closely they should collaborate. We have all realized that we cannot have the benefit of national sovereignty in its entirety and at the same time enjoy security.
Our other allies of the Americas have shown that they realize what it is all about. They have shown it by their membership in the League of Nations, and by the joint accord they signed in January, 1942, in Washington. 72537-2941
I maintain that never before in the last twenty-five years has there been a time when there has been a better basis for action based upon good-will among the allied nations of the world to bring about a system out of which we may hope to attain peace and security. Not that good-will alone can give us peace and security; that is only part of it. But it is a good basis. You must have the institutions through which that good-will can act. But the war (has taught us the alternative to collaboration among the countries of the world, and the alternative is another war, I believe, within the century.
Making the peace will bristle with difficulties. Let no one imagine that it can be easily done. In spite of mutual respect there will be an aftermath of bitterness and of disillusionment which may nullify the best efforts of our statesmen. Statesmen are only human, with the weaknesses and strengths to which human nature is subject. Will the democracies stand by their statesmen? You know the dangers there. National leaders at peace negotiations know that back home millions of people are watching to see that there is no sacrifice of national prestige or national sovereignty. The elected president or the elected prime minister knows how easily political opponents seize on every opportunity to denounce any concessions made. That is why we so desperately need an informed public opinion which will steadily hold up the hands of our statesmen. One does not need to go far afield to get examples of leaders who were not followed. But I did go far afield and I have here a quotation from an article by Doctor F. W. Sollmann, who was a member of the German government in 1923, an associate of Stresemann and editor of a chain of papers under Kaiser Wilhelm. He was one of the German delegates to Versailles in 1919, and fled from Germany in 1933 since when he lias been a resident of Pennsylvania. He makes this statement in an article in the Dalhousie Review for May entitled "Facing the German people":
Chancellor Stresemann often told me how he suffered under unfair attack in his own party. He and the first Reich president of the republic, Frederick Ebert, and many statesmen, died prematurely, hunted down by the attacks of a slandering opposition.
I went far afield for that.
The only hope of avoiding the danger of the demagogue's appeal is an informed public opinion. Extremists are always vocal. Can we in Canada understand that foreign relations must be removed from the realm, of partisan party politics if stable relations with

War Appropriation-External Affairs
other nations are to be built up? How can we reconcile our democratic right of criticism with steady support of international policy? Preparation for peace should mean the awareness of our own people of the sacrifices that must be made for peace. An informed public opinion, yes, and how can it become informed? Years of study will still leave much to be desired, but we should know something of the difficulties which come through the clash in national objectives. I think we ought to realize that the basis of lack of cooperation is a fear of domination, a fear that somebody else will form your policy for you. If we are ever to arrive at collaboration we must realize that other nations feel the same way about these things as we do. Let us not forget, when we speak of democratic countries, that the German people voted Hitler into power, mainly because he promised the easy way to get rid of mass unemployment, and to place Germany in the sun again. They voted him into power, and every democratic country faces a like possibility unless we have an informed public opinion that can examine policies from a non-partisan angle as they are set before them.
I should like to read a quotation from the Christian Science Monitor. This is an editorial which appeared on Armistice day, 1942. It might be entitled "How far can we go in collaboration?"
To-day the problem of durable peace is being discussed from so many angles that the public is in danger of confusion. If, before we can have peace, the income of every person must be guaranteed, if every vestige of racial or social discrimination must be obliterated, if every man must adhere to rules which mortals have never learned completely to live by, then peace is indeed a complicated business, and not to be achieved short of a perfect world.
That may be true of the peace that passeth all understanding; it is not true of the peace that exists between states joined in federal union, or which are members of a commonwealth, or which have recognized their fundamental interests as bound up with other nations. Among such peoples political peace is preserved by sharing in maintenance of forces protecting order while justice is being won. The next goal for world peacemakers may well be the establishment of this concept of sharing a single force for the preservation of world order. As much justice as is possible of achievement must of course be written into the next peace, but the supreme aim is that the peace shall be protected by force as widely supported as possible.
I should like to read what Anthony Eden said about this century in an address he made on July 3 to the English-speaking union in London. He said he was more than ever convinced that "the message of the twentieth century is the utter interdependence of all nations."

There is much more that I should like to say. This is pretty much theory, but you have to have theory before you can do anything elsA You require support for a policy that is to be put into force. I am very much interested in this question of peace and war;
I am concerned as all people are because war makes or breaks a nation and the civilization of the world. We must build together with other nations if we hope to build a permanent structure.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that we listened with some interest and perhaps with some expectation to the Prime Minister's speech of last Friday on foreign policy. I was, however, a little disappointed to discover that within about half an hour the Prime Minister spent some considerable time in reviewing the world situation as it appears to-day, making special reference to the war in the Pacific; he spent some time on the recently conducted food conference, and on the question of refugees from Europe, and therefore in the half hour period there was not much time left for him to give to this country the foreign policy of his government for the next year. It has become almost the rule of the day for the government to say this and that is a matter of government policy; therefore we cannot announce it until the appropriate time-the appropriate time meaning when the government thinks it is appropriate.
May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we are passing estimates for the year 1943-44. We are asked to vote sums of money for the administration of the Department of External Affairs to carry on some sort of policy for the next year; therefore when we are being asked to vote appropriations for the ensuing year the country has a right to know what the government's foreign policy is for that year, and so far as I am concerned-and I think the whole house will agree-we are still at a loss to know what that policy is. I believe I could go a little further and suggest that last Friday's debate, and the debate that is now in progress can be regarded as a continuation of it, is perhaps one of the most important debates that has taken place in parliament this year. That has been referred to before, and I thought that all parties of the house would take the opportunity to announce what their foreign policy might be. But I have not heard in any very pronounced terms what the foreign policy of the Progressive Conservative party is. I happen to have in my files a printed document which came out of the Winnipeg convention, I believe. It is entitled "Freedom, security, opportunity and

War Appropriation-External Affairs
the British partnership policy of the Progressive Conservative party." They do not have a great deal to say about it, although they go a little farther than the Prime Minister went on Friday. The Prime Minister did not tell us what the policy of his government was in respect of future foreign relations.
I come now to the next speaker, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I expected that he would announce what the foreign policy of his party was, but I listened in vain. He spent some considerable time justifying a statement he made in respect of the appointment of one of our foreign representatives, and some little time in respect of the Jewish refugee question, but I listened in vain for a pronouncement with regard to their foreign policy. I happen to have with me an article which I cut out of Canadian Business. This article has to do with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I find there are six points enumerated, but I cannot see anything with regard to their foreign policy. Statements which have been made in the past indicate to me that there is one tribute I might well pay to their late leader, Mr. Woodsworth, and that is that he was indeed a sincere and honest man, and that he was candid in his pronouncements in the house. My memory goes back to a time only a few short years ago when he sat in the house, and I recall clearly that on every occasion on which foreign policy was discussed his voice was heard. I do not know that the policy of that party has changed, but pronouncements which have been made in the past would lead one to the belief that their policy, in a word, is one of internationalism. There have been a few statements which would indicate that they are not particularly definite in respect of Canada's policy in the British commonwealth of nations, but they do seem to be definite in respect of collective security of some kind. I always have asked myself the question: Collective security with whom? So far as I am concerned there is no greater collective security in the whole world than that embodied in the British commonwealth of nations. The other day the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), stated something which has great value in respect of our attitude on foreign policy. Following that up I shall read only a few sentences from a speech by the hon. member for Yegreville (Mr. Hlynka), on February 18, 1943, where at page 521 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
To me the British crown is the heart and symbol of the British commonwealth of free and sovereign peoples. To me the British crown is the symbol of unity and the heritage of British ideals of more than a thousand years. More than that, we should prize our position
within the commonwealth because we are the benefactors in all and everything that has been achieved over centuries of progress. For instance, should it not occur to us that we are equal partners in a unique association of free sovereign nations. . . . Let me point out the underlying principles of our British democratic system. It is simply this, that the extent and the power of the British commonwealth of nations are consistent with the maximum of individual freedom, the maximum of local and provincial autonomy, and the maximum of sovereignty of each unit-nation, fitting into the pattern of the commonwealth. This philosophy of statecraft has been built on practical experience, and it is opposed to other philosophies which are supported by many, and which include the surrender of our national sovereignty in favour of some super state. ... The philosophy of the British people is diametrically opposite to that of totalitarianism in whatever form it appears.
The greatest assurance of individual freedom that can be found is expressed in those principles underlying the crown of the British commonwealth of nations. And to surrender any of that sovereignty to an outside body, and work from the top down to the people, is the very converse of democracy. Democracy, first and foremost, is the freedom of the individual expressing itself to its government and its administration. It is government exercising its powers to bring into existence the results that the will of the people desire. The setting up of international institutions does not guarantee that individual freedom. I do not say of course that there should not be some measure or some programme of international cooperation. International cooperation is one thing, but internationalism that will give over any of our national sovereign rights to a central power outside ourselves is neither democratic nor tending to assure individual freedom.
I do not know that we can properly diagnose the present world situation by simply looking at things as they appear on the surface. I am reminded of a solemn and striking portion of holy writ which says:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
That is true. Hidden somewhere in behind the scenes of human activity the forces of evil which operate backstage are the forces to be most feared. I suggest that the present world conflict, after all, becomes only an incident in the progress of history. What are we fighting for in this war? That question is often asked. It is usually answered by stating what we are fighting against, and we are usually told that we are fighting against the totalitarianism of Europe, that we stand for democracy, and that our fight is against totalitarianism with all its evils. It seems
4644	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
to me the dangerous situation is that in fighting against the evil powers of totalitarianism abroad, Canada and the other countries of the British commonwealth of nations may find themselves in the grip of a state-dominated system of our own making, because of powers which operate behind the scenes for eventual world domination. I am convinced that there are very powerful forces at work to bring about this disastrous condition. This is evidenced by bold assertions coming from many quarters that instead of a reconstructed democratic order after the war we must expect more government control, more bureaucratic regimentation, and all the other odious features of totalitarianism which have created so much havoc in Europe.
Much of that might be taking place in our own country, right under our own noses. But what of the world at large? I am not apologizing to the Prime Minister for saying this, but I think he should have stood up on Friday night and told the world that as far as Canada is concerned we will never countenance any move toward a supranational or world government, or any other move or utterance that would ask the people of Canada to give up any part of their sovereignty. If he had said that, I think he would have received the plaudits of this nation. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said that Canada needs the British empire-I agree with him. He said that the British empire needs Canada-I agree with him. I would go further and say that the world needs the British empire. I am convinced that there are powers that are seeking to destroy that empire, and have been for years. I am convinced that what took place in the two decades before the war was nothing more than a move on the part of unseen powers to render helpless the British commonwealth of nations.
May I say something which has been said before-this thought was expressed this morning by the hon. member for Lethbridge-I think it is nothing short of a miracle that Great Britain withstood the enemy in those years gone by. Dunkirk was a miracle, and it is a miracle that Great Britain, the British commonwealth of nations, and Canada too, have in such a short time come to be such powerful nations in respect to armaments. It is a miracle that this has been done, and perhaps the hand of Providence had something to do with it.
I have a good deal of material in my scrapbook, and I could not help but turn up a certain article a few days ago when that wonderful lady, Madame Chiang Kai-shek, was here. We applauded her, we praised the great
[Mr. Hansell.)
courage of the Chinese people, and we listened to her with all the intensity of our souls. It was a great day in Canadian history when she spoke in this chamber, but while I listened to her I could not help but hang my head in shame as I thought of what had happened in days gone by when the British commonwealth of nations was powerless to help China against the onslaught of powerful militaristic Japan. I went up to my office and I turned up an article which had been written by Madame Chiang Kai-shek and which appeared in Liberty magazine of December, 1940. This was over a year after the war had started. I should like to read just a few paragraphs from the pen of Madame Chiang Kai-shek. This is not someone else reporting Madame Chiang Kai-shek; it is what she wrote herself. She said:
Japan's easy conquest of Manchuria by unscrupulous means was but an example of how an aggressor could safely kick irksome principles into limbo and survive unscathed to enjoy not only the possessions of the "conquered" territory, but also the continued political, economic, and social good-will and friendship of those democratic nations which were originally the most vociferous in their denunciation of the aggression. Japan had tested international reactions to undeclared warfare, to the wholesale abrogation of treaties; and she found them empty of danger-either immediate or remote.
Have we reason to believe that any supranational authority can bring about treaties which will be any more sound? The article continues;
When Japan invaded Manchuria we refrained from resisting because the League of Nations undertook to adjust matters. They lost the region for us. There was a difference, however, when the Japanese proceeded to invade China proper. Then we abandoned faith in international undertakings, and we fought. For more than three years now Japan has been gouging with ferocious intensity at the very vitals of our country. She set the example for the wholesale slaughter and destruction now running riot in Europe-an example that might never have materialized had the democracies only fulfilled their obligations to China by restraining Japan.


John Horne Blackmore: Without the League of Nations.


Ernest George Hansell: She says that the League of Nations broke down, that they were not able to handle the situation, that they were powerless. She goes on to refer to the power of money, the power of cartels-she does not use that word here-and the power of world trade. She refers to the fact that the great democracies were feeding Japan with munitions of war but were not doing the same thing for China. The article continues:
America amassed profits by selling to Japan the necessities of warfare. Eighty per cent of Japan's war supplies came from America-


Thomas Miller Bell: And Canada.

War Appropriation-External Affairs


Ernest George Hansell: She said that eighty per cent came from America; I can only quote what is written here. The article continues:
[DOT]-and ninety-five per cent of the aviation gasoline which was used by Japan in her ruthless bombing was American.
China has thus been compelled to fight a war not of her own making with a power which has been aided and abetted unstintingly by the markets of the democracies. These markets were virtually closed to us, for no help was given us to avail ourselves of them. China has been the champion of the principles for which other democracies are now at war, but mention of what China has been able to do for the cause is seldom if ever made-an amazing situation.
And further:
What has happened, however-and what has not happened-is another great lesson to the Chinese people, another bitter lesson that they will never forget. They will remember never to believe in international promises, no matter how many imposing seals adorn the documents.
And again:
What the future holds no one can tell, of course. If, unhappily, for the democracies as well as for China, we should be defeated in the end, at least the world ought to know that we w-ere beaten not because of lack of courage -either moral or physical

but because China was strangled to death by an economic noose fashioned by Japan out of British appeasement, American profiteering, and French fear.
There is one thing I should like to say in that respect. It was not the people of China, or the people of Canada, the United States or Great Britain, who had anything to do with that. The governments were responsible. Once again I refer you to that passage of holy writ which says:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
The hidden hand of world finance is at work to destroy humanity and civilization, if possible, and one of the best ways it can do it is by destroying the British commonwealth of nations; and one of the pieces of ingenuity, I personally believe, wrought by that hidden hand is to set up a supranational world government which will have control of a world monetary unit which will in turn control if possible the internal economy of every nation in the world, the British empire included. The Prime Minister would have done a service to himself and his government had he stood up here on Friday and said, "This government will never tolerate the handing over of our sovereignty to any internationalism, no matter by what name it may be called."
This is a time in the world's history when the foreign policy of this country should be announced. It is a time in the history of this
country when the Prime Minister should promise the Canadian people that no commitments shall be made and no documents embodying such commitments shall be signed until those commitments are known to this parliament, and through parliament to the people, so that the people themselves can say "yes" or "no" regarding those commitments. But, knowing what has happened, I can suggest what is going to happen. I do not know who will represent us at the peace conference, but I am sure that a number of significant things will happen before the conference. Diplomats will be running all over the place. In his speech on Friday the Prime Minister mentioned certain international conferences. I doubt whether we know what goes on there behind the scenes. I do not say that the Prime Minister should be so bold as to tell the whole world, but it is the right of the people's representatives to know from A to Z what goes on behind those closed doors, and he can tell us in a secret session if he wishes to do so. These events are happening while the people's minds are occupied with the war. The technique of evil powers seems to be to get the people's minds off the future and keep them on what is happening to-day, confuse them with this and that, worried as they are with the fate of their loved ones battling overseas, so that these evil powers can put over their designs now. I believe I can see what is going to happen. I do not know who will sit at the peace table; it may be the Prime Minister; certainly it will not be myself or any member of our group; I doubt very much whether it will be any members of the party to my right.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: What about us?


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know whether the Progressive Conservative party will gain much power. The fact is that we do not know what is the Prime Minister's policy of the future, in relation either to foreign affairs or to domestic politics. I fear that commitments will be made, that documents will be signed, and that this parliament will be asked not what it wishes to do, but to ratify commitments which have already been made. If I am in parliament at that time I may have the privilege of reminding hon. members of this prediction.
I can only reiterate that I believe the Prime Minister owes it to Canada to give us, before the debate is ended, a full pronouncement upon his government's foreign policy.

War Appropriation-External Affairs


Brooke Claxton: I have one or two words to say after the speech made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) this morning, and I am grasping this early opportunity of doing so.
The hon. member referred this morning to statements which he said I had made at some occasion or another. I asked him then if he could produce any such statements. He said he was looking for them and he hoped to be able to produce them. I notice that he has been back in the chamber since, and he has not taken advantage of the opportunity of producing them, so that I assume he has not found them. It would have been generous, of course, to say that he had not found them, because no such documents can be shown to exist, but since he has not cared to do that, I should take this opportunity of saying that there is nothing whatever in the assertions he made and that no such documents or statements can be found because they do not exist. In fact the one thing he specifically referred to, namely the manifesto which he said was published in the Winnipeg Free Press, was not only not signed by me-it was signed by a very considerable number of distinguished Canadians, including a number of Conservatives

but also it did not bear anything of the import ascribed to it. This manifesto is a declaration of Canadian unity in war and peace, and it urged that the Canadian government and parliament should put itself on record, before an occasion presented itself when it would have to declare war or not, that it had the right to do so. I remember being asked to sign this at the time, and I refused to sign it for two reasons. The first of those two reasons was that I did not think the time was ripe for it. I thought that at that time, when war seemed imminent, the document would be misunderstood-which I may say was the reason given by the Prime Minister for rejecting the legislation it advocated. Second, I felt that the course that would be pursued by the parliament and government of Canada would establish the course that was advocated and would make the point abundantly clear, as I thought it should be made in the interests of the unity of Canada and of our greatest possible contribution to the cause which at that time everyone could see lay ahead.
May I say just one or two other words on the same point. When the hon. member for York-Sunbury said that I should not have said that I advocated one British statesman in opposition to another, I admit his charge completely: I should not have said it, and I never did make that advocacy in public. I
[Mr. Hansell.)
did however feel provoked by the attitude of some people to the views I then expressed. Events have justified the views I then expressed. However, I should not have said that to the house, because I never made that advocacy in public, and probably it would have been improper for me to do so.
In all this discussion there seems to be a fundamental confusion, which is so extraordinary as to be almost deliberate, between a point of view which was one of simple self-respect in Canada, and what the hon. member for York-Sunbury calls isolationism. I venture to say that if you look back over the record-and I can give the texts of all the speeches I have made, which are far too many

from 1932 on, you will find that there has been no more determined anti-isolationist in Canada than myself. You will see too that the veiy commencement of my taking any active part in the discussion of external affairs was my strong antipathy to the policy then being taken by the government of which the hon. member for York-Sunbury was a member. That policy was taken at Geneva in 1932. It was expressed by my predecessor in this house in a speech which he delivered at Geneva on I think December 12, 1932, and it was a policy which was then generally regarded by most students of the subject as one that was not strongly opposed to the position and the pretensions of Japan with regard to Manchuria. With that policy I disagreed, and I believe that events have proved the attitude I then took right, because it was that policy and the kind of thing it represented which led to the deterioration of international affairs everywhere.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member be a little more specific regarding that policy? We are interested to know what policy he upholds.


Brooke Claxton: I think the hon. member will see it in the records. I can send him the documents. It was a policy of acquiescence in the attitude taken by Japan with regard to the conquest by force of a part of China. When that policy was acquiesced in at that time it -meant that several nations were allowing Japan to break her treaty obligations; and in allowing Japan to break her treaty obligations, in not assisting China, those nations themselves were not fulfilling their obligations. It was that failure to live up to obligations that led to the deterioration in the international situation which contributed to bringing about the present war. It did not -bring it about but it made it possible.


Gordon Graydon: I was not very clear as to what my hon. friend was referring to.

War Appropriation-External Affairs
Perhaps he might enlighten the committee, whether or not he meant the position that Canada took in the League of Nations assembly and council with respect to that very problem, or whether it had to do with some opinions expressed individually in Canada.


Brooke Claxton: It was a speech made
by the Hon. Mr. Cahan on December 12, 1932, at Geneva.


Gordon Graydon: At the League of
Nations?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. I am speaking from memory. I do not suggest that he was alone in that at the time, but I do suggest that to be accused of being an isolationist by a former member of a former government which took that attitude at that time is a little hard and a little unfair, particularly when I went on record and have remained on record ever since as being in favour of the fullest possible cooperation by Canada with other nations to preserve the peace and prosperity of the world everywhere.


Gordon Graydon: May I take it that my hon. friend, in taking the position which he did in 1932, was following the policy and the line taken by his own political party?


Brooke Claxton: I do not know what line the Liberal party took at that time, to be quite frank.


Gordon Graydon: I cannot recall that they opposed that position.


Brooke Claxton: I do not remember. But as I said in answer to the member for Lethbridge the other day, in going back over these things we have to have a very elaborate record before us in order to trace out events. What I am saying here, however, is quite personal, and that is that the charges made, in tones of considerable bitterness, by the member for York-Sunbury in the house against me to-day, cannot be supported by any record. On the contrary, I think the record will show that when it comes to isolation or cooperation I have steadfastly stood by the side of cooperation.


John Horne Blackmore: I would not interfere with the hon. member's fine talk. I am reassured by what he has said regarding his own stand, but I would ask a question which he need not answer at the present time unless he wishes to. Does he think that Canada took the stand she did, on that memorable occasion in 1932, because she was in the British empire? Would she have taken a different stand if she had been outside the British empire? Remember, she was in the
League of Nations, and the stand she took must not have been because there was not a League of Nations. Why did Canada and the British empire take the stand they did?
I am wondering if it was because they were too weak to take any other stand-that they did not have the armaments.


Brooke Claxton: That was a very tangled period in the history of the world; there is no doubt about that. My hon. friend can read books about it as well as I can.


John Horne Blackmore: I have read several.


Brooke Claxton: He can see what there was of cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom, which was an important element. The stand taken by Canada was close to that taken by the United Kingdom at Geneva, but that did not necessarily make it right.


Gordon Graydon: It would not necessarily make it wrong.


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no. If possible, we should take the same stand on occasion after consultation. That was the point I was trying to make.


John Horne Blackmore: For our purpose at the present time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, never mind that. This is an historical incident that has a considerable bearing on the question under discussion, whether we should have a supranational government. No supranational government would have done any good at all. The British empire did not have the arms with which to back a demand, and she knew she would have to put the backbone, the stomach and the teeth into the League of Nations.


Brooke Claxton: That is a long statement involving quite a few assertions of what my hon. friend takes to be facts, but I should say that if there was one stage in the history of the world when the nations did have the strength required to make a stand it was then, if they had been willing to use it. The fact is that they were not willing to use it -not all of them. I am only led on to this -I nope my hon. friends will recognize it- because I do not believe in isolation and I have never believed in it. I believe that every step where we have gone wrong from 1920 to date has been due to failure on the part, not of this government but of most governments to live up to their obligations. Of course, Canada cannot take a stand alone
4648	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
against the stand of the whole world in matters of this kind, thongh we have had the example of New Zealand, which in 1938 did take a stand virtually alone in the world, and I believe it has earned the respect of a great number of people by reason of having taken that stand at that time. I have been completely consistent about this. I have been accused in the past of being unrealistic, idealistic, and this and that, but never before of being isolationist. I do hope therefore that this charge is disposed of now and for all time.
Just one word and then I am through. We cannot speak for the majority of people when we are speaking in this house on a matter like this, and I speak, like any other private member, only to express my own view. All we can do is to try to put forward views that will appeal as being sound views and offering the policy that should be taken. We do that with all sincerity and should do it with all frankness. But when the hon. member for York-Sunbury says he does not think that views of 'the kind I express represent the views of the majority, whereas the views he expresses are the views of the majority of Canadians, he is just matching his judgment against mine, and I think he will find that the kind of views I express, and the kind of views that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) expressed, are the views that are going to be held by an increasingly large percentage of English-speaking Canadians, just as they are by practicality all those who are not of Anglo-Saxon stock, and who represent fifty-one per cent of the people. Those views come from a consideration of what Canada's interests are. I put with my friends among the very forefront of Canada's interests, the survival of Great Britain, the strength of Great Britain and the survival of everything she stands for. It is important that we should try to understand each other. It is important to the unity of Canada that we should make an approach of that kind rather than the other approach which is what is called the British front approach. The results will be almost identical in either case; we shall work together. But it is important that we should speak as a chorus, shall I say, rather than with a single voice automatically. Because if we set out to speak with a single Voice the other nations will say, "It is just the old British voice. It is not the other democracies standing alongside her, and so they can be ignored." If we follow that course we in Canada shall have no foreign policy, and all the talk about national autonomy will -become just so much talk. We shall be setting the 
clock back and we shall not be doing the things my hon. friend wants us to do as well as if we pursued the line I suggest.
I am sorry to have taken up time with this personal explanation, but I do think it is important that in these matters on which there is so much emotional attachment we try to understand each other, and if I am not understood by my hon. friends at least I hope that they they will not doubt my loyalty on this or any other occasion.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for York-Sunbury while he was speaking this morning made some reference to whether the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was expressing the views of the administration or his own personal views. I was not very clear from the hon. member's answer this afternoon as to just where he stood in that matter.


Brooke Claxton: It is plain that I was expressing my own personal view. I have no right to speak for the administration on this.


Gordon Graydon: If I may raise a point that has nothing to do with the matter under discussion, I think it might be well if we could have some declaration from the Prime Minister as to whether or not a parliamentary assistant, being a member of what may be regarded as a junior cabinet, so to speak, is conveying the views of the administration or merely his own views when he speaks on a matter of government policy. Just where does the differentiation lie? How far must we separate the cabinet ministers themselves from those who are parliamentary assistants, and who, according to the explanation which was given when they were first appointed, would be spokesmen for their ministers in the House of Commons?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A parliamentary assistant is in the same position as every other hon. member in the matter of his right to speak for himself and express his own opinions. The hon. member who spoke this afternoon made it abundantly clear that he was speaking only for himself and giving his own opinions.


Gordon Graydon: But not on the previous occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think he did also then. But apart from that I do not think it is to be assumed that when a parliamentary assistant is expressing his views he is necessarily expressing the views of the government, though I must say with regard to what my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George has said, I am in entire accord

War Appropriation-External Affairs
with him and I believe the administration also is. I wish to supplement that by saying that I am not accountable for the interpretations that gentlemen opposite may put upon his words. I have a right to put my own interpretation upon what he says, and I know it will be the proper interpretation. There are occasions when a parliamentary assistant may be expressing to the house the views of the government. Those occasions will be apparent; when, for instance, he is speaking of matters referring to the department of which he is parliamentary assistant, and makes it clear that he is expressing the views of the administration. The line of demarcation is very clear.


John Horne Blackmore: Just before we get away from the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, I want to express my personal appreciation of his having made his statement this afternoon.
I wish to make one statement regarding the reason why the British empire did1 not prevent the aggression of Japan. I have it on the very best of authority, as I believe all hon. members would recognize if I were free to divulge that authority, that the reason why Britain did not take stronger action then was that they were just too weak to do anything else. Their navy and army had fallen into disrepair, and they realized fully that if they did take a stand, the whole thing would fall on them. Following the tragic experience of Munich they simply had to begin to build up their power. Before this incident can be taken as of important historical significance one way or the other it should1 be established whether that statement which I received in confidence is true. I believe it is true, for the simple reason that I do not see how in the world the British empire could otherwise have become so impotent as it did become in just seven short years, especially when our Prime Minister himself on coming into power in 1935, immediately began to increase armaments in this country, and other empire countries were doing the same. I cannot be convinced that we had a first-class fighting force capable of meeting Japan in 1932.


Mr. CL  A XTON@: If I might answer my hon. friend in a word, assuming that what he says is true, it makes even stronger than anything else could the case that I have been making-that is, that in the time that lies ahead we should endeavour to get a totality of force that will prevent aggression and prevent Great Britain or the United States from ever again being put in a position where they will have to allow an aggressor to go
ahead. Therefore I advocated in my speech, as I have done for the last ten years, that in order to prevent war and aggression you must have enough force to do it, so much force that nobody will dream of committing an act of aggression. For me it is no longer possible to find that force in any one nation. It is not possible to find it in the British commonwealth, or in Britain, the United States or in Russia, the three most powerful nations the world has ever seen. It is necessary now to find that totality of force which will prevent aggression in a combination of all the nations. I should like to see that brought about. That is what I mean when I say we must have collective action to organize collective strength. There is nothing particularly idealistic in this. It is a policy based on interest, as all policy must be based. But it is in our interests that we should work together with all nations to mobilize the greatest amount of strength we can get-if possible all strength on our side against aggression. That is fundamental in any system of security which is built up after the war. I am glad my hon. friend brought out that point; it strongly reinforces the point I was making.


John Horne Blackmore: In my judgment it absolutely devastates my hon. friend's contention. There must have been unquestionably a reason why the British empire allowed its fighting forces to fall into disrepair. What could that reason possibly have been? It was that the British people were lulled into a sense of security by reason of the fact that they reposed trust in the League of Nations, which was supposed to be powerful enough or diplomatic enough or wise enough to deal with all international situations as they arose. The result was that, as never before in the history of the British empire, the people allowed their defence forces to fall into disrepair. The people or the governments did that. That is a fact which in my judgment is of prime importance to this parliament to-day. There was something which caused us to allow our forces to become weak. I maintain it was the fact that we were in the League of Nations. If we can reason by reference to what has occurred in the past, if we bind ourselves into a supranational arrangement we will do exactly the same, or a little worse. We shall say it is George's business; let George do it, as we said before. George certainly left it undone. My own opinion is that George had his ear bent to the very powers that the hon. member for Macleod was referring to,
4650	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
who were trying to render the British empire so weak that it was unable to stand up against its foes.
May I say something with respect to the actual power within the League of Nations. France was in the League of Nations, and there were half a dozen other nations who were members of the league. If there was any vitality or virtue in the League of Nations, or any supranational government as such, surely there were enough nations within that group to have stopped Germany at that time, to have stopped Japan -they certainly could have stopped Japan. Certainly they could have stopped Germany, because Germany had not yet begun to rearm. How these arguments can be propounded I certainly cannot understand. It must be borne in mind that the British empire did finally stand in the way of Hitler in 1939, after Germany had rearmed and while Japan was even stronger. If the British empire did stand largely alone in the path of Germany and held her, what could the British empire have done had she been prepared? The great flaw in the reasoning before the war lay in the fact that we allowed ourselves to become unprepared. I am sure hon. members must be simply nauseated when they think of our contemptible state of unpreparedness and the impotence which obtained everywhere in this country, in every branch of our defence services. The attitude of the Canadian people generally regarding matters pertaining to defence was almost as bad. The Minister of Pensions and National Health, who at that time was responsible for the department having to do with military affairs, well remembers how difficult was his task in bringing anything into this house with respect to rearmament in 1936. What was the matter? There is only one answer, so far as I can see. Those who should have been informing the Dominion of Canada on the state of unpreparedness which obtained everywhere throughout the empire, those who should have been making clear to the people of Canada that Germany was rearming, that she was becoming a terrible foe, that Japan was a terrible potential foe, that unquestionably there was danger of a clash between Japan and the United States-those men whose duty it was to be informing the people of Canada, and unquestionably the Prime Minister of Canada was one, were neglecting their task. What for? Because they wanted to win elections.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend, did I not stand up with the Minister of Pensions and National Health and

emphasize for all I was worth the necessity of increasing armaments when practically everyone was opposing them?


John Horne Blackmore: It is all very fine for the Prime Minister to say that to-day, but I am asking him whether he said the same thing in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The years for which I am responsible I made my position plain everywhere.


John Horne Blackmore: I am just wondering why the other leaders did not follow suit. I ask why the leader of the Conservative party of those days, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, did not cooperate with the leader of the Liberal party. I ask the Prime Minister if he believes for a second that if every member of his party had gone out to the constituencies throughout the country and told the truth, and if every member of the Conservative party had done the same thing, the people would have continued uninformed? It just does not make sense. I believe the trouble was simply this, that there was a reticence, I will say a culpable reticence on the part of the public-


Mr. DUPUIS:: I should like to ask-


John Horne Blackmore: I shall deal with my hon. friend in a moment.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like to ask a
question.


John Horne Blackmore: Let me finish my
sentence.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like to ask a
question to clear up the record. I should like to know if the Social Credit party went all over the country and discussed these questions.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall answer my
friend in just a moment. First of all, let me finish my statement. There was a culpable reticence on the part of the public men of Canada in informing the Canadian people of the true situation with respect to the deplorable unpreparedness which obtained everywhere in the British empire and with respect to the appalling developments which were taking place across the Rhine.
Now, may I deal with my hon. friend? I have not the quotation, but the very first statement which the Social Credit party made in January or February in Edmonton-


Vincent Dupuis: What year?


John Horne Blackmore: In 1936.


Vincent Dupuis: What about 1930?

War Appropriation-External Affairs


John Horne Blackmore: My hon. friend will
get it in just a minute. I know it. The very first statement issued by the caucus of members of this party behind me appeared in the Edmonton Journal or the Edmonton Bulletin, where it can be obtained. If the hon. members want it I shall get it and read it to them. That statement called for extensive increases in the preparedness of this country. There is no question about the meaning of the statement. It pointed out the danger which existed. I am going to ask the Prime Minister if a group of people who had never been connected with political activity in this country at all had learned these dangers, what was the matter with him and his cohorts that they had not learned this truth? We knew the danger with which we were confronted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish my hon. friend would tell me where he learned it.


John Horne Blackmore: By keeping his eyes
open and doing a little reasoning, that was all. That was all that was necessary, just keeping your eyes open and doing a little reasoning when Hitler came to power. There was no question in the wide world that he meant business, none whatever; and very soon he began to manifest signs of exceedingly dangerous strength. When he entered the Ruhr, that was a warning to everyone. Surely when he entered Austria, that was the handwriting on the wall. And the statements which he made in "Mein Kampf" show what he meant. Among other things he certainly definitely declared that France must be destroyed. The Prime Minister will remember that. I suppose they thought he was talking in his sleep when he said that, but he meant what he said, as he has clearly shown. What other warning was necessary to alarm anyone? Let me point out that the members of my party were not in a position to have access to the secret documents which should have been transmitted to the heads of the government of this country. Those documents must have been filled with causes for anxiety and fear. I was reading a book just last summer by Kurt Reiss entitled "Total Espionage," in which most damaging accusations are made with respect to Baldwin and Chamberlain, to the effect that these men were informed in detail by responsible authorities in England of the conditions which were developing in Germany, and they disregarded the warnings. If they were so warned it is hardly to be conceived that the leaders of this government were not warned. Another thing that is amazing to me and is amazing to
everyone who thinks about it in the Dominion of Canada to-day, is this: why were these warnings disregarded?
Now, with respect to the statement made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the one thing I am worried about as a father in this country, the father of eleven children and the grandfather of five, is this:	Are these babes of mine who are
now growing up going to be victims of a betrayal similar to that in the future?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the hon. member should use a word like "betrayal". He knows as well as any other hon. member in the house that the whole feeling throughout the world for many years after the last war was that there would not be another war for a long time to come. There was a strong pacific sentiment everywhere, which those who saw the danger did their best to fight. But it was difficult to do so in those times. But do not, please, talk about people betraying others. That implies a deliberate effort on their part to deceive, and to deceive for special ends, which could not have been so with any of the men about whom the hon. member has spoken.


John Horne Blackmore: If my word has in any way offended the Prime Minister, then I withdraw it unqualifiedly. But I did wish to use a word strong enough to cover the situation, and I can think of nothing more effective than the word "betrayal". But may I absolve my right hon. friend from that. I will say that the information adduced in the book "Total Espionage" by Kurt Reiss is sufficient to convict the two gentlemen I have mentioned of betrayal, beyond any shadow of a doubt. They betrayed not only Great Britain, but they betrayed 650 million people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest it is not fair so to speak of these honourable persons, one of whom is dead and no longer here to be heard, and the other Who lives in England, having done his duty according to his own lights, and in the way he believed best. I suggest they should not be referred to in that way, in their absence, in a house of parliament which stands for fair play. I do say the hon. member has no right to say that either of these gentlemen knowingly betrayed anyone.


John Horne Blackmore: I withdraw once more. But. as I said this morning, the time has come for plain speaking. And hon. members at this time must do some plain speaking, let the chips fall where they may.
4652	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member may say that they were mistaken in their view; but it is a very different thing to say that these public men deliberately betrayed their trust, their country and a multitude of people.
Mr .BLACKMORE: I have withdrawn the word "betrayal". I am not going to give information which would tie to them the term I have used. But I could give information which could not be answered at all.
It is my anxiety that if we become involved in some supranational government, and if consequently our people become apathetic and over-confident, not only in this country but in all other countries, including the British empire and the United States, then we shall be setting the stage for a complete eclipse in the next war. And against that eventuality it becomes my duty, as a responsible member of the House of Commons in Canada, and as a voter in this country, to take precautions. I say the doctrine the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is advocating at this time in the world's history is a dangerous doctrine. Yes, it is very dangerous. Let not hon. members be deceived. There was a member, not now in the house-she was defeated in the last election-who contended with the greatest earnestness that there would never be any more war. Anyone with sense knows she was talking nonsense. But there was the danger-a lot of people believed it. They were deceived and carried away, including many hon. members in the house and many members of the Liberal party.
I am going to turn just for a moment to the question of the prevalence of the belief that there would be no future war. Probably I should not go into detail, but judging from evidence brought to my attention when I was teaching school some years ago, I am convinced that an attitude of mind was deliberately induced by making use of a clever type of propaganda operating through certain (periodicals in this country, and gaining access to the teachers in our schools. The people who issued that propaganda achieved their ends, just as they intended to do. I would rather not name the people involved, but I will tell the committee this, that they were seeking deliberately to destroy the British empire. I read one of their documents which came to my hand as principal of Raymond high school. In that document they outlined their plan, and the first thing they were going to do was to destroy the fighting morale of the British people, the Anglo-Saxon race. They surely did that; they had wonderful success. Then they reasoned that when fighting morale was 
destroyed the people would oppose preparation for war-which they did. This would leave the people completely helpless at some future time, if a war were developed.
The whole thing worked out. Can we give any reason why the Anglo-Saxon world went -well, there is only one word which seems to fit, and that is, haywire? My right hon. friend knows the difficulty Mr. Roosevelt had to get the people in the United States to look upon the situation with even a measure of common sense, factuality and reality. Why, one man down there-I have forgotten his name-said, "I would not go to the Georgia river to meet the foe!" What an inconceivable dolt, to make a remark like that! And he left his country so helpless that it finally became necessary for him, and it will probably be necessary for his descendants, to go much farther than the Georgia river to meet the foe. If he had used anything like common sense, he, his sons and his fellow countrymen would have been prepared, instead of being in the pitiful state of unpreparedness in which they were, when war finally came to them.
I apologize again for occupying so much of the time of the committee, but-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann):: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: I am surprised. I have found it a very interesting subject. But, Mr. Chairman, I am going to repeat this warning, time and again, so that all will come to know it.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, this discussion has amazed me. I was not a member of the house during the time mentioned by the hon. member for Lethbridge. In those days I was just an ordinary day worker. But I did pay some attention to the matters which have been discussed this afternoon. I have been amazed at the lack of knowledge shown by the men who represented the people in those days.
Summing up the war situation this morning, the Prime Minister pointed out the seriousness of the present situation, brought about by the fact that Canadian troops are actually engaged in combat. In his statement he said he wished to guarantee the troops and the general public that so far as the Canadian government was concerned, those troops would not be let down. I hope the government'will live up to that promise.
There has been some discussion this afternoon respecting the League of Nations, its break-down, and the fact that in 1939 we were plunged into a bigger and better war.

War Appropriation-External Affairs
The point which stands out clearly from the discussion is that guarantees given in all sincerity, as was the one this morning by the Prime Minister, were not lived up to. It was not the machinery of the League of Nations that failed. The machinery of the league in my opinion was a hundred per cent correct. It was the only machinery befitting this day and age. Sensible men and women sat around the conference table, arbitrating the grievances of nations, and made decisions without resort to war. Those who conceived the idea of the league were honest, and it was their belief that those who would administer the league's policy would give honest administration. Those who were administering the machinery could have made it work, but they were thinking in terms of dollars and cents rather than human needs and1 civilization. They are the ones who are responsible for the condition the world is in to-day. That is the one thing that Stands out most clearly in this discussion so far as I am concerned. Promises, such as those made by the Prime Minister this morning, were not lived up to. The men who fought accepted the promises made in 1914-18; they believed that they were fighting a war that was to end all war. The people by and large were convinced that they had accomplished, that purpose. The soldiers who had fought believed that that purpose had been accomplished. The people who are indicted by the discussion this afternoon are those who were in authority at that time, those who made the promises, those who had the administration of the world under their hands for the following twenty-five years. They fell down on the job and brought about the results we are faced with to-day.
I hope that the lesson is one that will sink into the minds of the Canadian people and the peoples of the world in general. I hope they will not place too much trust in the promises of individuals or scraps of paper such as treaties and. so forth. They themselves must take an active interest in the affairs of their country and of the world in general. They must see to it that the power to bring about a similar situation in the next generation is not left in the hands of a few men who are to make the decisions.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has left the chamber, but I want .to say to him that I have followed very closely the workings of the League of Nations. I did a lot of work for it in my own province, because I believed in it. I also believed that we had fought a war to end war. We all know what happened to the League of Nations.
The United States, which gave birth to the idea, never became a member. That hurt the league, and hurt it badly. We all watched the manipulations from the inside. I merely have to draw your attention to the men in France and England who were responsible for the break-down of the league. These countries were the dominant factors in the league and1 they could have made it work. Those most prominent in bringing about the downfall of the League of Nations were Sir Samuel Hoare and Mr. Pierre Laval. They stood by and allowed Mussolini to carry on his adventure in Ethiopia. We know to-day the motives that actuated them. We know where Hoare is to-day. He is in Spain with Franco, because he is acceptable to Franco. We know where Laval is to-day.
I have no intention of going into this particular matter. It is a long story and I think everybody is familiar with it. I do not think the ideas advanced by the hon. member for Lethbridge are relevant at all. I do not believe in imposing some superstructure on the world as an aftermath of this war. We must have an organization similar to the League of Nations as a means of ironing out our difficulties. But you must have honest men and women in this organization who will stand up and fight for the proper principles. That was not done in the last war. I can remember the discussions that took place on the Versailles treaty. Some of us who were fairly young at that time knew that we were merely laying the basis for another war. The job should have been completed. Foch should have been listened to. He warned the people who were signing the Versailles treaty that they were merely signing an armistice and making it necessary to do the job over again within twenty-five years. He was ready and willing to complete the job, and it should have been completed. But the soldiers won the war and the politicians stole the peace. They manipulated things and brought about the situation we are in to-day.
When the peace is being written this time, many of the men who are actually in the field and have experienced the horrors of war should be given the privilege of sitting around the conference table and having something to say about the machinery that will be provided as an aftermath of this war. I did not get up to say these things, but the discussion which took place previously provoked me into saying what I have said. I could not help making these remarks with respect to the League of Nations. I never had any doubt as to whether it was the right
4654	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
machinery. If it had been, made to work, we would not be at war to-day. I know why we are at war to-day. Canada was blindly led by people in whom she had confidence. It has always been my opinion that Canada blindly followed Great Britain's lead and we eventually landed in the position we are in to-day. Chamberlain, Hoare and others will have to give an account of their stewardship before the bar of justice of the future. They will be indicted for creating the situation in which we find ourselves to-day.
If Churchill had had anything to say about what was done in Great Britain in the ten years before the war, we would not be in the situation we are in to-day. He tried constantly to warn them of what was taking place. We all know why the strength of Hitler was built up. There is no mystery about it. We know why British and French money was provided. They feared social change more than they feared Hitler. They feared Russia as being the vanguard of social change. They wanted a strong Hitler in Europe to offset any efforts to bring about social change. That is why the machinery to avoid war in the future broke down. I think it is the duty of the government and of those who represent the people, of those who have access to this information, to bring these facts before the public from time to time so that there may not be repetition in the future of what we are going through to-day.
I do not think the time is opportune to discuss foreign policy. The policy of the government to-day should be to make every effort to win the war. The discussion of just how we are going to do business with our neighbours in the future should be left until the picture is clearer than it is at the present time, until we know just what kind of world we are going to be living in.
I should like to say a few words about a matter in connection with which I think Canada should do something at this time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a question on Friday evening which seemed to not be very popular. He asked that some assistance be given to the Jewish people. This is a matter about which the government should make some pronouncement. To hear some people talk you would think the Jews represented seventy-five per cent of the world's population, when the fact is that there are probably less than 10,000,000 Jews in the world. About 7,500,000 of these are in nazi-occupied Europe. I do not want to elaborate on some of the things said by the hon. member, but we must not

forget that Hitler has a policy of complete extermination of these people before the end of the year. I am not interested in them as a race, but we are all human, and I try to place myself in the position of one of these people who are in nazi-occupied Europe. They go through the same suffering that you would if you were starving or waiting for a firing squad, if you were placed in a box-car and shipped away among the dead, if you were faced by all the horrors described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If there is something we can do about it, we should do it. I am very critical of everything that has been done so far. The Bermuda conference which was called to discuss the question of refugees from occupied countries did absolutely nothing about the question. I have read a little about the conference. Delegates of the different countries came there with fixed policies from their governments, and it was merely a matter of doing nothing. There is no policy to-day on that question. One thing which Canada could do is to make representations to the British government. There is available in Palestine a ready and convenient sanctuary for a considerable number of Jews. Palestine is an example of 1914-18 promises which were not lived up to by the British government. Everybody in this house knows about the Balfour declaration issued on December 2, 1917, whereby Palestine was to be made a homeland for the Jewish people. They were to be given their roots in the soil of some country so that they could take on the status of a nation and be represented in the future world on that basis. That declaration has been partly put into effect, but what concerns me is that, according to a white paper issued by the British colonial office within the last six weeks, Jewish immigration to Palestine for this year is cut down to a greater extent than it has been in the past, and for next year, 1944, it is eliminated completely.
The Jews as a people are making a contribution in this war. They are serving in the allied armies at the present time in North Africa and wherever the war is being carried on. Some 30,000 Jewish soldiers are fighting in the allied forces. In relation to the number of Jewish people throughout the world and their meagre opportunities of participation, they are making their contribution, and there is no reason in the world why the Balfour declaration should not be carried out. Remember that it was backed up by the United States. I have here a declaration passed by the 77th congress, bearing the signatures of practically all the United States senators and members of the House

War Appropriation-External Affairs
of Representatives, entitled "A common purpose of civilized mankind". It deals specifically with the question of Palestine. I am not concerned about Palestine as a homeland of the Jewish people; that is something which will have to be decided by themselves and the British government. What I am concerned about is that Palestine offers a sanctuary for thousands of Jewish people who might make their way out of nazi-occupied Europe if they had anywhere to go. The action of the British government has closed to them a door which was opened by their own people. They are not able to go there.
I cannot understand how any member of a government or any member of parliament can stand up and make the declarations that are made about serving humanity, about the better world which is to come when all this destruction and misery have ceased, and yet preclude the possibility of enabling the Jewish people who are being persecuted in nazi-occupied Europe to pass through the door , which their friends in Palestine have opened to them. Canada has said nothing on this matter, and she has the right to say something. I feel we have the right to protest this action on the part of the British government. They have no right to close that door to Palestine when the Jewish people are willing to open it and to accept full responsibility now and in the future for those who may be able to escape from nazi-occupied Europe.
In the next place, entrance to neutral countries to which these people might be able to escape is practically closed. The great democracies who are engaged in the war have undetraken to liberate all the peoples of Europe some time in the future, but neither they nor ourselves have ever said that they were prepared to help to pay the bill of refugees who might be able to escape to those neutral countries. The action of the united nations regarding the Jewish people can only be described as hypocritical. I do not know how any man or any woman can presume to stand up in this chamber and make promises to those who may happen to come through this war, while they will not lift a finger to provide a sanctuary for thousands of people who could probably get away from nazi-occupied countries if they could be maintained in Switzerland and other neutral states. We should be prepared to bear our proportion of the cost of maintenance of these people and some reasonable disposition to provide for their welfare after the war. It is not a matter of leaving the neutral countries to handle the job alone.
The other evening, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was speaking on this question, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) got up and tried to give it a political significance. So far as I am concerned the human race is one family. Where you were born, what is your religion, or your nationality, or the colour of your skin, is an accident of birth; you are not responsible for it. Unless we break down this idea of merely regarding as Canadians those who were born in Canada, I can see very little hope for the future of the world on the basis of the promises which are now being made concerning post-war policies. I think we could start doing something now. I have many documents here. I am not going to read them; I do not believe in quoting too much, but they contain the assurance by people who know what they are talking about that if the doors into Palestine were opened, thousands of Jewish people could make their way there and find a sanctuary.
To my mind the handling of this question by the united nations as a whole will stand out as one of the strongest indictments against us. We have not lifted a finger to save thousands and thousands of lives. We say that when the war is over Hitler will be brought to task and made to pay for his atrocities against the persecuted peoples of Europe. That is all very well as regards the nations who are recognized as such, who will have their representatives at the conference table to present their case for them. But that is not the position of the Jews, and no other class of people in Europe have suffered such severe persecution. Where Hitler has been able to enter and dominate they have lost all their worldy goods; their families have been destroyed or scattered, and they have suffered most inhuman treatment. But they will not be sitting around the conference table; and if the attitude of the united nations now towards rescuing them while there is still a chance of rescue is to dominate at the conference table, we do not mean anything when we say that the atrocities for which the Germans and the Italians are responsible will have to be paid for. We can do something about it. But we have never even lifted a finger.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: My hon. friend says we have not lifted a finger. Does he attach no importance whatever to all the Canadian army, navy and air forces are dloing in this war to try to alleviate the situation in Europe, and in particular, the terrible position of those very people of whom he is speaking? How can he say that this country has not
4656	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
lifted a finger? I made very clear in the statement I put forward the other day that the difficulty of obtaining passage on ships to bring people to this side was one of the reasons why some of the refugees who have escaped could not be brought here, but I have made it equally clear that where it was possible to have them brought over, Canada was )repared to receive them.


Clarence Gillis: The Prime Minister and myself are talking about two different things. [ am referring now particularly to the possibilities of saving thousands and thousands of Jewish lives in nazi-occupied Europe. I recognize what we are doing to liberate the whole continent of Europe, but the Jewish people face a different situation altogether. We may be able to liberate to some extent the French and the Belgians. They will be able to take part in the fight. But the Jewish people have been driven into Poland, largely into ghettos, without any chance to fight for themselves, and if our attitude prevails they will not be there when the liberation takes place, because they are being systematically exterminated day by day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How can we possibly get into Germany to liberate them or to prevent them from being put into ghettos? The one hope for them is that our military action along with that of other allied nations may help to make possible their speedy release, but until that time comes what can we do for persons who are now in Germany or enemy occupied countries?


Clarence Gillis: I am not asking the government to get into Europe in order to do this. I am asking the Canadian government to protest to the British government against their action in closing the doors of Palestine to Jewish refugees who may escape from nazi-occupied Europe. I said that I would ask the government to do only some of the things I think we can do, and I suggest that we can make that protest. If thousands of refugees vdio are escaping had the right to go into Palestine, they could be taken care of in that way. The action of the British government in closing that door, restricting immigration this year to 29,000 and next year completely cutting it off, is something we can protest against.


Gordon Graydon: How long ago was it that the British government made that decision to close Palestine?


Clarence Gillis: Within the last six weeks.
It is a white paper issued by the colonial office. That is one thing I should like to see done. Second, I think the neutral countries that are

closed would get thousands of these people if those countries had some assurance that the United States or Canada or some other country could be provided as a sanctuary for them if they could be transported or that we would assist neutral countries in helping to feed them. I cannot forget the fact the Prime Minister mentions ships and railways and all these difficulties. All I ask is that the Canadian government indicate what they are prepared to do by way of helping these people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will see that I made a definite statement in that regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read page 4560 of Hansard.


Clarence Gillis: A large number of Jewish
people did get hold of a ship themselves last year and sailed with hundreds of women and children from port to port, but they were refused entry until the ship finally broke up off the coast of Norway somewhere. What I have suggested are things that we can do. Canada has a right to speak in these matters and to protest against the closing of Palestine, not taking sides as to whether Zionism is right or wrong; but I submit that that door should be opened and as many people allowed in as possible if they can escape. They are penned in and have nowhere to go. We could say that we are willing to take them, provided they can get here; that we would see that they were looked after and that some final disposition could be made after the war of the question of their home status.


Gordon Graydon: What was the reason
given by the British government for closing Palestine? I am only seeking information to enlighten myself on that point.


Clarence Gillis: No reason has been given
that I know of, apart from the fact that they have a mandate over Palestine and have the right to decide about immigration. My opinion is that it is a case of the old appeasement policy, appeasing the Arabs, and failing to face a realistic situation on a humanitarian basis.


Gordon Graydon: Was it debated in the
British House of Commons?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out to the hon. member that the immigration policy is still governed by the terms of the white paper which was issued in 1939. The recent statement of policy referred to was an

War Appropriation-External Affairs
announcement some weeks ago that the 1935 white paper policy remained in force and would not be reopened at this moment.


Clarence Gillis: That is true, but that 1939 paper definitely sets out that at the end of 1943 there shall be no more immigration into Palestine, and immigration, is badly restricted this year. It reiterates the previous policy and closes the door at the end of 1944.


Gordon Graydon: This is not a new policy to which the hon. member has referred-the announcement of six weeks ago?


Clarence Gillis: It was a paper that was
issued reiterating the previous policy on account of representations made to open the door. Their answer was a reiteration of that previous policy which closes it in 1944.


Gordon Graydon: There has not been any change in policy. This is a confirmation of an old policy?


Clarence Gillis: Not since 1939.


Gordon Graydon: The only thing I am
concerned about is that it did seem to me that in the last day or so the Jewish people have had a lot of champions. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee.


Clarence Gillis: I will give the hon. member a file that goes back to 1939. It is not to-day that I beoame interested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To supplement what I have said to my hon. friend, the 1939 document laid down an annual immigration quota for each year up to 1944 and the United Kingdom is advancing some visas, normally valid in 1944, to help some of these refugees this year.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: As the Prime Minister knows, the people of British Columbia are keenly interested in the government's foreign policy, particularly in so far as it refers to the Japanese evacuees. In fact, the feeling has been so tense that it was made clear to the government that it may anticipate trouble should there be any attempt at the end of the war to return the evacuees to the Pacific coast. However, the door has been closed, partly at any rate, in this direction by reason of the fact that the custodian of enemy property has sold to the veterans' land board some 760 odd parcels of agricultural land formerly occupied by Japanese, so that the question arises, where does the government intend to place the evacuees at the close of the war? In my district of Kootenay West there are 8,000 of them, and their attitude is apparently tranquil
enough at present. But the time will come when the attention of the allies is directed exclusively to Japan, and it may be that the spirit of loyalty may prompt these evacuees to change their attitude, which would be particularly dangerous if directed to the railroads and power plants, because many of them are in that vicinity. I would ask the Prime Minister, before . these estimates are passed, to tell us just what the government's foreign policy is toward these evacuees; for instance, what it is towards the 10,000 nationals? Is it the intention to return them to Japan or to have them remain in Canada? What would be the government's policy toward the 7,000 naturalized Japanese and toward the 6,000 Canadian-born Japanese? As to these naturalized Japanese, of course that is optional with the government, because they can cancel naturalization if the situation warrants it. As to the Canadian-born Japanese it seems to me that their citizenship should be respected. That is the question I should like the Prime Minister to make clear before we pass upon these estimates. We are keenly interested in knowing whether we are to have eight thousand Japanese permanently located in the interior of British Columbia.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of entering into a discussion of Canada's general foreign policy. I wish to confine my remarks to one particular phase of that policy and to something which I think Canada can do, and certainly it is a phase of our foreign policy to which Canada should give some consideration at the present time.
As one who has spent just about half his lifetime in Canada and the other half in that small sister dominion which has recently given up its dominion status, the little island of Newfoundland, I am anxious to know what consideration is being given at the present time to the relationship that is to exist between Canada and Newfoundland when the war ends. This is opportune to the subject of discussion at the present time and one of considerable importance to Canada.
If hon. members will for a moment visualize the geographical position and the strategic position which Newfoundland holds in the lower St. Lawrence, I think they will fully realize the importance of that island to Canada. We have only to think for a moment of how difficult it would be to defend Canada and this continent if to-day an enemy were in possession of that island. Situated as she is in the mouth of the St. Lawrence, the country that dominates Newfoundland is in a position to sail up the St. Lawrence and
4658	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
destroy Canada's lifeline of trade with Britain and Europe. There is an importance there that has not been recognized in the past.
We have been content to depend for our security upon the British navy, and upon the Monroe doctrine to a considerable extent, until this war came. But now that Canada considers herself a nation and is certainly in a position where she must assume some responsibility for her own defence in the future, and with the growing importance of submarines and air power, the strategic position of that island becomes important for Canada's defence. That importance is recognized, as every hon. member knows, by Great Britain and by the United States of America as well as by Canada. To-day it forms a vital line in North America's defence. There has taken place the peaceful invasion of the island by Canadian, American and British members of the armed forces. A writer in the Yale Review for the spring of 1943 likens the island at present to a huge anchored aircraft carrier, combined with a great natural dry dock moored to the ocean floor. That importance I need not emphasize or dwell upon.
History before now has demonstrated the strategic importance of Newfoundland to the country that held it. I think historians are agreed that probably one of the mistakes that the French rhade when they sought to maintain occupation of this continent was that in their interest in the fur trade they failed completely to recognize the importance of that island set squarely across the entrance to the St. Lawrence. It was not until 1662 that the French realized it would be important to them in holding Canada and North America to secure possession of that island. By that time it was too late. Great Britain had established her power on that island. Historians agree that when the French lost possession of the peninsula of Avalon that was the first step in the downfall of the French power on this continent. England's possession of that little island gave her the use of its harbours and a decided advantage over the French in the wars that followed between England and France. I need not emphasize the importance of that island to Great Britain at the time of the American revolution and the American invasion of Canada. The fact that that island was then a British possession, that British ships crossing the Atlantic could find shelter there and from there proceed up the St. Lawrence to the relief of those who were holding Quebec was a vital factor in the results that followed that invasion.
I should like for a moment to call the attention of the committee to the fact that in 1776, when Quebec was the last fortified position in British possession, when the garrison

at Quebec numbered very little more than one hundred men, the presence of two schooner-loads of soldiers from Newfoundland, to the number of, I believe, 130, has generally been recognized to have been of considerable help to that little garrison on that night of January 1, 1776. I am glad to know that years later, in 1846, when the one city in that island. St. John's, was half destroyed by fire, Canada was the first to come to the assistance of its people. I well remember as a boy in the public schools many years after that learning of the gratitude of the people of Newfoundland for the assistance which had come first of all from Canada on that occasion when Newfoundland needed help. The point I wish to call to the attention of the committee is that history has shown in the past that the country which held this part of North America found it extremely important to be in possession of that outpost of the St. Jjawrence, that little island which is known to-day as the watchdog of the St. Lawrence.
I am anxious to learn from the Prime Minister whether any consideration is being given at the present time to the question of the union of that island with the Dominion of Canada. I am satisfied that the future fortune of that island lies in common with Canada's future. I am anxious to see steps initiated by the Canadian government with that end in view. I have said that the time is now opportune. Hon. members will recall that back in 1933 when that little island found more than one-third of its revenue going to the payment of externally held debts they realized it was utterly impossible, on account of the loss of their markets for fish, to carry on, and they voluntarily relinquished responsible government which they had enjoyed for nearly one hundred years. I believe they are the only example of any part of the British empire, which possessed dominion status under the statute of Westminster, voluntarily relinquishing that dominion status. They were forced to do so by economic pressure. To-day there is a growing discontent with the government by commission. There are strong interests in the island at work looking toward the restoration of responsible government when the war ends. So far as the status of the island is concerned, some change will undoubtedly have to be faced. That in itself offers an opportunity for reopening the old question of union with the Dominion of Canada. There has grown up in the island during the past two or three years, as a result of the seeds of social changes which have been planted there by the presence of Canadian and American members of the armed forces, a feeling that the economic well-being and the strategic needs

War Appropriation-External Affairs
of that island require some kind of union with either Canada or the United States. As I say, that feeling has grown.
From all the information I can gather I believe the people of Newfoundland have come to recognize the fact that their future economic well-being lies along the road of some form of union with either Canada or the United States. Their history, first as an isolated colony and then as an isolated dominion, has been a very unhappy one. There are probably few parts of the civilized world to-day where the common people have suffered as much from exploitation as the inhabitants of Newfoundland have suffered during the periods that have passed. There are many who know the island well who fear for some reason the importance of United States influence there at the present time. The inpouring of United States dollars which has taken place during the war, the first-hand observation of United States standards of living, are all having a significant appeal to the people of that island, the people who lived through a depression when 25 per cent of the population was living on a dole of 6 cents a day. One cannot wonder that the presence of United States money and the knowledge of United States standards of living are making a significant appeal to some of the people.
There are also factors growing out of the past which give the people of that little island some reason to be a little suspicious of union with Canada, and I am confident that such a union as I have suggested will not be achieved without difficulty. It will require far-sighted statesmanship to bring about such an objective; it will require statesmen who are fully appreciative of the importance to Canada of this union, important from the point of view of the defence of this country in the future. It will depend upon the readiness of these statesmen to accord generous terms to the people of that island in order to effect such a union.


Mr. GRAHAM:: May I inquire from the hon. member the population of Newfoundland?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The population at the present time is somewhere around three hundred thousand.


Roy Theodore Graham: Homogeneous population?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I would say that the inhabitants of the island are all of British descent. There has been no immigration from Europe. Up until twenty-five years ago the memory of what happened in 1895 when representatives from Newfoundland, anxious to bring about union, failed in their negotiations and when I think the whole question turned on the
payment of somewhere around one million dollars by the Canadian parliament, has caused considerable opposition to union with Canada. That has been developed in the country over the years; but there are many factors that will facilitate the work of any Canadian government that will to-day undertake negotiations with that end in view. In the first place we can rely on the loyalty of the people of that island to Great Britain. I need not emphasize that loyalty; I think it has been demonstrated in every war in which England has been engaged within recent times.
The Canadian government took what is generally considered a commendable step in their appointment of the present high commissioner to Newfoundland, Mr. Charles J. Burchell. The people from the island to whom I have spoken use the highest terms of commendation in referring to the good work he has done. The fact that the people there can deal with the Canadian government through a high commissioner instead of dealing through a branch of the colonial office, as the United States government has required them to do, has raised the prestige of the Canadian government in the minds of those people, and will assist greatly in any negotiations that may be undertaken.
May I close with an appeal to the government that they recognize the importance of that union to Canada. I am not thinking so much of the interests of Newfoundland itself. Having lived in both parts of the empire, and knowing both parts well, I am satisfied that the future success of that island lies in a union with Canada. I am satisfied that Newfoundland needs Canada, and also that Canada needs Newfoundland. I should like to emphasize the importance of beginning negotiations at once because, as soon as the war ends, questions connected with the withdrawal of Canadian airmen, soldiers and members of the Canadian navy, and the withdrawal of United States members of the armed forces, as well as the question as to the disposition to be made of the bases established by both Canadian and United States governments, will be matters which will have to be determined. I would suggest that steps be initiated now toward sounding out the possibility of making Newfoundland the youngest province of Canada, after the war, and the rounding out of the Dominion of Canada by the union of that island with us.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few remarks to those I made last Friday evening, but before I do so may I pay tribute to the Prime Minis-
4660	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
ter (Mr. Mackenzie King). I should like to call the attention of people outside the house, who perhaps do not realize what he is doing, that to sit as he did last Friday-not only to sit, but to listen and, I have no doubt, pay attention-through nine hours of debate in weather such as this is, to say the least, no mean feat of endurance. I do not know how he feels to-day, but I can say that I have often felt a lot more like speaking than I do now.


Thomas Miller Bell: And we have to keep our coats on, too.


Norman Jaques: Well, as long as we keep our shirts on, we shall be all right. So that I am sure hon. members will overlook any shortcomings in my manner of speaking.
All hon. members listened this morning with feelings of gratitude and thankfulness to the great news from Europe. I know no remarks 'of mine can add to what was said in the house. I do not feel, however, that happenings in Europe should cause any diminution in our efforts to do the best we can in the House of Commons on behalf of those who are doing the fighting. The allied nations are subjecting the gangsters to a continual bombardment of two-ton and four-ton blockbusters, and meanwhile the racketeers seem to be subjecting the allies to a continuous bombardment of two-ton truth-busters.
May I call the attention of the committee to a letter published in the New York Times on May 9. It is headed "A Mission To Moscow", and the authors are John Dewey and Suzanne LaFollette who, respectively, were chairman and secretary of the international mission of inquiry into the Moscow trials. I shall not read the whole letter, on account of its length; I shall read the first and last paragraphs. It begins:
The film "Mission to Moscow" is the first instance in our country of totalitarian propa-ganada for mass consumption-a propaganda which falsifies history through distortion, omission or pure invention of facts, and whose effect can only he to confuse the public in its thought and its loyalties.
Even in a fictional film this method would be disturbing. It becomes alarming in a film presented as factual and documentary, and introducing living historical personalities. Our former ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph E. Davies, personally introduces this dramatization of his mission as the "truth" about Russia. And the representation of President Roosevelt talking to Mr. Davies of the film seems to suggest that it is at least semi-official.
That was the first paragraph. This is the last one:
The film is anti-British, anti-congress, antidemocratic and anti-truth. It deepens that crisis in morals which is the fundamental issue in the modern world. . . . "Mission to Moscow"

is a major defeat for the democratic cause. In putting out this picture the producers, far from rendering the patriotic service on which Mr. Davies compliments them, have assailed the very foundations of freedom. For truth and freedom are indivisible, as Hitler knew when he expounded his method of confusing public opinion through propaganda. The picture "Mission to Moscow" makes skilful use of the Hitler technique. To quote Matthew Low of the New Leader: "This kind of 'truth' is on the march, and God help us if nothing can stop it."
I do not wish to add any remarks. I did not see the film, and I do not intend to see it. But I ask this: How is it proposed to build the four freedoms on a foundation of falsehoods, when truth and liberty are indivisible? I think that is a fair question, but I shall leave others to answer it. It is written, as near as I can remember, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Or, as I have just said, truth and freedom are indivisible. I would advise the examination by everybody of all propaganda, of all proposals for a new order, for a new world, if you like, from that point of view. Let everyone ask himself two questions. Is it the truth? If it is not, then it will make to destroy liberty. Does it propose to curtail liberty? If so, it is not the truth.
Some months ago I raised a question in this house in connection with our loyalty to the crown. This matter had been brought up in a speech by Mr. Sandwell who advised that the people of Canada would have to surrender their loyalty to the crown as individuals to an international control.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He never suggested that at all.


Thomas Miller Bell: He said that we might perhaps have to surrender some part of our sovereignty.


Norman Jaques: It would mean a diminution of our liberty as individuals, but I am not going to argue the point to-day. The press were flattering to me and to my colleague here. I should like to quote an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, as follows:
There should be no mystery about where Mr. Jaques got his ideas. He is a student of Major C. H. Douglas, the originator of Social Credit theory, and Major Douglas provided the lead his students and followers require in Jew-baiting. Major Douglas wrote his main work "Social Credit" in 1924, about the same time as Adolf Hitler was completing "Mein Kampf", and by curious coincidence, both these works bore the influence of an earlier work called "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion."

War Appropriation-External Affairs
That is a very good illustration of what I have said, that truth and liberty are indivisible. But to say that Major Douglas based his ideas upon those of Adolf Hitler is about as damnable a lie as it is possible to utter. Certainly it is a credit to the opposition of social credit. Major Douglas introduced his idea in New York, either late ini 1918 or early in 1919, while Adolf Hitler was still a corporal in the imperial German army. I do not suppose "Mein Kampf", or the ideas expressed therein, had entered his head, but anything to destroy truth, and see if you can link up anti-semitism and fascism to social credit. Personally I do not care. It will not make any difference to me, but I warn the people to make sure whether these statements are true or false. If they are false, you can be sure that there is a purpose behind them.
I have been told by numerous people and it has been stated in the press that I had perpetrated the greatest waste of parliamentary time in parliamentary history. This was said merely because I had called the attention of the people to the fact that there is a movement which would surrender our loyalty to the crown, which is the symbol of our individual liberties, to international control. The editor of Saturday Night honoured me with a complete editorial about myself and this supposed waste of time, and then he devoted two pages to the idea. I notice the same thing in other papers of Canada. He was good enough to end up by saying:
Mr. Jaques further distinguished himself a few days later by upholding, in (of all places) Miss Judith Robinson's News, the authenticity of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," that astounding fabrication which purports to record the proceedings of a conference of highly placed Jews held for the purpose of planning the destruction of Christian civilization. Presumably a mentality which can accept the A plus B theorem can accept anything.
That is very touching. The A plus B theorem I need hardly explain is the proof that there is a shortage of purchasing power. Evidently the editor of Saturday Night, Mr. Sandwell, does not believe in it, or at least he does not believe in it by inference. But unless he is stupid beyond belief he must believe in it. The only difference between him and me is that he is paid to say that he does not believe in it. I wonder how long he would remain as editor of Saturday Night were he to come out with a confession of faith in Douglas' A plus B theorem?


Gordon Graydon: Is the hon. member
suggesting that he is not putting his views forward honestly?


Norman Jaques: I am suggesting what I
have already stated; I think that should be
enough. One more thing with regard to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Here is another editorial, headed "Disgraceful," which goes on to say:
The House of Commons has its own way of showing its detestation of intolerance of this kind, as witnessed by Mr. Coldwell's crushing retort to Mr. Jaques on April 19, page 2312 of Hansard. Mr. Coldwell's caustic reference to the infamous "Protocols" as the kind of reading with which Mr. Jacques nourishes his mind, floored the member for Wetaskiwin and kept him floored for the rest of the day.
Well, I am on my feet to-day, anyway;
and I would say that if the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) has not read the "Protocols of Zion," he cannot know what he is talking about, and if he has read the "Protocols," he is in the same case as I am.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have read them. I
do not believe them.


Norman Jaques: The difference between us
is this-*


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do not believe them?


Norman Jaques: -that the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is afraid to admit it; I am not.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not afraid to admit it. I simply do not believe the fables that are to be found in the "Protocols of Zion."


Norman Jaques: To prove that I am not
afraid of the "Protocols," I have made a few quotations from them and intend to put them on Hansard, and I challenge any hon. member to rise and say that they are false. I have never said that I guarantee or that I endorse the authenticity of them. I have never said that So-and-so and So-and-so were the authors of the "Protocols of Zion." Those who feel libelled by the "Protocols" have the most obvious remedy in the world; all they have to do is to rise and denounce the policy of them, instead of denying the' authorship. Here and now I say on behalf of Social Crediters the world over that we utterly repudiate and denounce the policies contained in the "Protocols of Zion." But when you come to read them, how can any reasonable man deny the truth of what is contained in them? Let me read this one:
Gold always has been and always will be the irresistible power. Handled by expert hands it will always be the most useful lever for those who possess it, and the object of envy for those who do not. With gold we can buy the most rebellious consciences, can fix the rate of all
4662	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
values, the current price of all products, can subsidize all state loans, and therefore hold the states at our mercy.
We shall have occasion at a later date to refer to that. Does anyone care to deny that? Then here is another one.


Thomas Miller Bell: Just a minute; "Does
anyone care to deny that?" I do not suppose anyone cares to deny that gold can be used for that purpose, but the point is that the "Protocols of Zion" state that a certain group of people are using it for that purpose and that they are a particular nation. That is the danger of the thing.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. We have been discussing this department for quite a while, and I hope that in future speakers will keep within the orbit, which is a very wide one, of external affairs. I do not think the statement of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin can be said to be included in it.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Chairman, we were
assured by the Prime Minister that we would have the utmost latitude. I maintain that the matter under discussion is perfectly germane to this debate; more than that, that my honour and reputation have been impugned, and I wish to make my answer to these charges publicly in this house. I can assure the Chairman that I shall say nothing to shock anybody's sensibilities.
Here is another one:
In our day the power which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal is the power of gold.
Thanks to the press we have got the gold in our hands, notwithstanding that we have had to gather it out of oceans of blood1 and tears.
And listen to this one:
We shall create by all the secret methods open to us and with the aid of gold, which is all in our hands, a universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers in all the countries.
At a later debate, Mr. Chairman, I shall prove that by no less an authority than the Right Hon. Winston Churchill.
Here is another:
AVe shall surround1 our government with a whole world of economists.


John Horne Blackmore: We have them now.


Norman Jaques: Around us there will be a whole constellation of bankers, and millionaires, because in substance everything will be settled by the question of figures.
And here is another one:
Economic crises have been produced by us by no other means than the withdrawal of money from circulation. Capitals have stagnated, withdrawing money from states-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I do not see how we can properly discuss the monetary system or money problems on this item. Again I repeat that although it is very wide in its scope-there is no doubt about that- if we want to make any headway at all, I think we should keep as closely as possible within the limits of the item.


Norman Jaques: I sympathize with your remarks, Mr. Chairman. May I say that to the uninitiated it does seem strange; but we are now discussing, I believe, world affairs and the future policies of world government, and to leave out of that discussion the question of financial control is surely to rob it of all reality.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Chairman, at six
o'clock I was discussing certain financial considerations and you wondered whether I was in order. I hope that in my concluding remarks you will grant me sufficient latitude. I said that in any discussion on international affairs, or in any discussion on any future world order, to leave out the question of finance would be to rob the discussion of all reality. I quoted from the "Protocols of Zion" and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party interjected a remark. He said:
I do not suppose anyone cares to deny that gold can be used for that purpose, but the point is that the "Protocols of Zion" state that a certain group of people are using it for that purpose and that they are a particular nation. That is the danger of the thing.
Can it be denied? It is not a question whether gold can be used, but the fact that gold is and has been used to the great disadvantage of the vast majority of people. As for the statement that a certain group of people are using gold, and that there is the danger, surely that cannot be denied.


Thomas Miller Bell: The protocol states that only a certain group of people are using it, which is not true. That is dangerous.


Norman Jaques: Dangerous to whom?


Thomas Miller Bell: Dangerous to the welfare of the community.


Norman Jaques: Which is the most dangerous threat to world liberty-


Thomas Miller Bell: By whom?

War Appropriation-External Affairs


Norman Jaques: -the reestablishment of the gold standard or the accusation that it will be used and put into force by certain kinds of people? I have no use for and nobody can accuse me of stirring up any kind of race hatred. But when I consider what our troops are facing in Europe at this time, how can I run away from* the issue when I am safely in Canada in this house? I say there has been a deliberate plot and a deliberate plan on behalf of the international financiers to reduce the *world to a state of servitude, and I am1 not going to run away from that issue because somebody rises and says it is dangerous to say that because, if you do, you may injure the feelings, if you like, of the Jews. If their feelings are injured they have the remedy in their own hands. Let these international financiers, these, if you will, international Jewish financiers, declare to the world that they will have no more of this gold standard and that they repent of their sins ini the past. But they do not do that. Instead of denouncing the policy of the "Protocols," they merely deny the authorship. I do not think it matters who is the author of these "Protocols." I am merely saying, whatever may be said for or against the authors of the "Protocols," that no one can deny that what is contained in them is a reflection of what is happening in the world to-day.


Thomas Miller Bell: Financiers are not all
Jews.


Norman Jaques: I do not say they are all
Jews. Murderers are not all Germans either.
The leader of the opposition made an interjection and asked me if I thought it possible that Mr. Sandwell would be-how did he put it?-guilty of not stating the truth for financial reasons. Let me deal with that in this way. I have asked the members of the press gallery on a number of occasions why it is that the members of this group get practically no publicity in the press.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will get a lot of publicity in Goebbels' press to-morrow.


Norman Jaques: I will come to that in a moment if I have time. The members of the press gallery tell me this: We sell our stuff by the inch, and if we sent in ten inches of Cooperative Commonwealth Federation stuff- that is the technical name for their copy, I believe-we get paid for ten inches, but if we send in ten inches of your stuff we might get paid for only half an inch, and we cannot afford that.


Norman Jaques: Possibly the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party thinks that represents the relative merits of the two parties. But I think the real reason is this, that what socialists say is quite welcome to the financial press and what we say is the very opposite. That is why we get no publicity in the press.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is the hon. member's idea.


Norman Jaques: What other reason is there? When the press were dealing with certain remarks of Mr. Sandwell on the League of Nations they quoted the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Will anyone tell me what the policy of Saturday Night has in common with socialism except the common one of finance? Why is it? Talk is cheap enough, but facts count. I am speaking now as a farmer, and I am speaking mainly to farmers and small business men whom I represent. I should like to know what they have in common as a rule with the policy of such a paper as Saturday Night. Does it cater to the welfare of the farmers? Then I will ask this? Where was Saturday Night when wheat was twenty cents a bushel? Did Saturday Night denounce that? Not that I ever noticed.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The discussion seems to be wandering far afield. Surely we are not going to start a discussion of wheat all over again. I am going to apply the rules strictly, because I believe the committee desires to see these items go through.


Norman Jaques: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will change the subject. Let me refer for a moment to the attempt to link up social credit with fascism. People have spoken in this house to-day demanding that all the Jews in Europe be rescued and brought to America. I am not saying anything against that policy. But I know this, that three years ago the communist party in this country issued an election manifesto. I have a copy of it on my desk now and I shall quote the last paragraph:
Join in one common front against this most criminal war of human history. Strike a blow in this federal election to save Canada, to end the war, for peace.
I am not criticising that. This is a free country, thank heaven, and everybody has a right to express his opinion. But I would ask this: Was Hitler a fascist in 1940? Was there any persecution of the Jews in Germany in 1940, or is it only since Hitler invaded Russia that he has become a fascist, and that the Jews have been persecuted?


Thomas Miller Bell: Relative values. 72537-295


[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-External Affairs
In 1940 I fought an election for total war against all parties. I say that actions speak louder than words. Talk is cheap, and to describe our group as fascists, Jew-haters or Jew-baiters, whichever you like, when we have proved in the past that we alone in this house stood for total war against fascism, fought an election on it and lost half of our members in so doing, is typical of the "truth-busters". In passing, may I say that those of us who were defeated in the election at once put on the king's uniform.
When I brought up the subject of the League of Nations the hon. member for Essex East retorted, what about T. E. Gregory? What about T. E. Gregory? He is an old friends of ours, and if anyone cares to take the trouble to look up his record in "Who's Who", he will find that up to 1942 T. E. Gregory was known as Theodore Emanuel Guggenheim Gregory, professor of economics at the London school of economics and economic adviser to the government of India. In the last few months we have heard a lot about the economic conditions of India and that they are a reflection of British imperialism. Well, you would hardly connect Theodore Guggenheim with British imperialism. But if you look in "Who's Who" you will find to-day that Theodore Guggenheim has become Sir Theodore Gregory, Knight. That sounds like British imperialism. I should like to quote from the writings of a distinguished soldier. I am referring to Major-General J. F. C. Fuller, author of many standard books on military strategy. This is what he says:
The many battles in which We have been defeated were not lost in Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Malaya, Burma and Libya; for years back they were lost in our foreign office and in our treasury.
Session after session, foreign minister after foreign minister, with the pickaxe of the League of Nations swinging over his shoulder, undercut the foundation of our national and imperial security, whilst chancellor of the exchequer after chancellor of the exchequer, with the poison gases of procrastination and prevarication, all but stifled efficiency in our fighting forces.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes. Shall the item carry?


Norman Jaques: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the indulgence of the committee for one minute.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Norman Jaques: Major-General Fuller
continues:
Believe me or not-as you like-yet remember that for years my endeavours were ground to powder in the treasury mill. It is not our generals, admirals and air marshals who have

failed you-you, the people of this great country -it is the governments you elected and the treasury system you not only tolerated but upheld.
The quotations I have given are justification for my stand. If I did less I should consider myself not worthy to be a member of this house or to represent the people who have sent me here.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. On May 20 I put two questions on the order paper. The first question was as follows:
1.	Who is in charge of Latin American affairs in the Department of External Affairs?
2.	Does he speak Spanish or Portuguese?
3.	Has he in his office anyone who can speak Spanish or Portuguese fluently?
4.	What is his salary?
The second question was:
1.	How many members of the Department of External Affairs speak Spanish and/or Portuguese?
2.	In making appointments to the Canadian legations in Latin American countries, were the positions advertised? If so, how many applicants were there?
3.	Is there a Canadian legation in Mexico?
4.	If so, who is in charge?
5.	What is his salary?
6.	Who are the member's of his staff, and what salary or allowance are they paid?
I formulated these questions at the request of somebody in the Department of External Affairs, and I thought the Prime Minister would be able to answer them at this time; in fact, that is what I was given to understand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, this would seem to be a convenient opportunity to make a general statement on our relations with our neighbours in the Latin American countries.
There has been a natural and very marked growth of interest recently in our contacts with Latin America. Our newspapers, magazines and radio programmes all bear witness to this growth. So also does the increased enrolment in college classes in Spanish and Portuguese. Inquiries from commercial organizations and questions asked in this house reflect the same interest, and I shall be glad on this occasion to add a little to the information which has from time to time been given to the house.
May I say at the outset that it is gratifying to note that the growth of Canadian interest in the countries of Latin America is matched by a parallel development of interest in Canada on the part of our friends from south of the Rio Grande. We have been happy to welcome in recent months the foreign minister of

War Appropriation-External Affairs
Uruguay, the president of Bolivia, the former president of Colombia and a number of other distinguished visitors from Latin America. We were looking forward to a visit from the president of Chile which unfortunately has had to be postponed. In addition, Canada has welcomed groups of journalists from Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Bolivia and Cuba.
This growth of mutual interest is undoubtedly due in considerable measure to the fact that, with one exception, which *we all hope will not long remain an exception, the nations of North and South America have come to a clear and formal recognition of the common danger in which we stand. The democratic and Christian ideals in which we have all been nurtured are menaced by enemies more dangerous than any aggressor in the history of western civilization. Under such circumstances it is right and natural that we should draw closer to those who are our friends and, in particular, to those who fight with us. But in addition to this immediate cause for the establishment of closer relations with our Latin American neighbours there is a growing realization that in the post-war era, as well as in the period of conflict, we shall have interests in common; that our joint contributions to the peace and welfare of the wTorld as a whole can and must be based on a joint and effective interest in the welfare and peace of our own neighbourhood. It is thus a matter of significance, and a sound cause for satisfaction, that we have constantly increasing evidence of the growth of mutual knowledge, mutual respect and mutual good>-will among the nations of this hemisphere.
It would perhaps be useful at this point to place on Hansard a factual record of the official contacts maintained by Canada in the Latin American countries. As hon. members are aware, we have established legations in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. In each of these countries the officer of the commercial intel-ligerfce service who previously acted as trade commissioner is now a member of the staff of the legation with the title of commercial attache. The legations are under the supervision of the Department of External Affairs and report to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Under the Department of Trade and Commerce the commercial intelligence service maintains trade commissioners in Cuba, Mexico, Panama-shortly to be moved to Colombia -and Peru. The responsibilities of the commercial attaches and trade commissioners in certain cases extend beyond the boundaries of 72537-2954
the country in which they reside with the result that every country in Latin America is within the field of activity of a trade representative of the Canadian government.
Our official contacts with the governments I have mentioned have been reciprocated by the establishment of legations in Ottawa by the governments of Argentina, Brazil and Chile. In addition, there are in Canada consular representatives of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador, and Venezuela. Canada has no consulates in Latin America, our only offices of this kind at present being the newly-established consulate general in New York and consulates in St. Pierre and Miquelon, and Greenland. Consideration is being given to the establishment of additional consular offices but no decision has yet been taken.
Our legations in Brazil and Argentina were established in 1941. Our first minister accredited only to Chile was appointed in 1942. The government has been repeatedly urged by representatives of business organizations and others to extend our diplomatic representation in Latin America and we have received proposals looking towards the exchange of ministers from a number of other Latin American governments.
Much as we should like to accede to these proposals, we have found it necessary to move slowly. The major difficulty has been the problem of personnel. It is an ironic fact that the very time when it is particularly important that we should be well and widely represented in friendly foreign countries is the time when the pressure on Canadian man-power is greatest and when it is most difficult to spare from urgent forms of national service persons suitable for appointment to tne posts of minister and to the subordinate offices in the proposed legations. It is almost impossible at present to provide any more of the senior officers of the permanent external service for appointment as ministers abroad. We have already reduced our establishment of trained senior personnel in Ottawa and in our present legations and high commissioners' offices to the point where those who are left are carrying a burden sc* heavy that we cannot add to it by further withdrawals without creating more problems; than we solve. Most of those outside the service with the kind of qualifications required by persons apointed to diplomatic posts are already so deeply engaged in activities in close connection with the national war effort, that they cannot justly be urged to undertake appointments abroad. Nothing would be more unsatisfactory or more likely to arouse just
4666	COMMONS
War Appiupriation-External Affairs
and severe condemnation among our people at home than to send incompetent or unsuitable persons as the diplomatic representatives of Canada in foreign countries.
The same problem exists in great measure with respect to the secretarial posts in our legations. The Department of External Affairs grew slowly for many years and the necessity for economy during the thirties precluded the enlistment and training of as many young men as should otherwise have been enrolled. Now that the necessity of expansion has arisen we find that even by spreading our trained officers very thinly over the field, we cannot cover all the ground that should be occupied. Here again the problems of recruitment have been seriously complicated at the very time when good candidates for the service are most required. A very large proportion of the best young manhood of this country is in the armed forces and selective service rules made it almost impossible -and I do not criticize the regulations-to accept applications from others who are physically fit. Moreover, if we were to fill the service now with young men who had not enlisted to fight for their country those who have joined the army or navy or air force would find their entrance to and advancement in the external service blocked or impeded by the appointments made during their absence on active service. This would be manifestly unfair.
Faced with this problem the civil service commission has held only one examination for appointments to the post of third secretary in the Department of External Affairs in the last three years. That examination, held in 1941, was arranged particularly to fill the definite need arising from our increased contacts with Latin America. It was specifically designed for candidates with a knowledge of Spanish or Portuguese. There were 134 applicants for permission to write, thirty actually wrote and of these five qualified and were appointed to the external affairs service.
Apart from this small group, appointments to the service have been temporary war-time assignments. But even if we could get enough candidates and of the right quality for such appointments, it takes time to train the new officers and to enable them to obtain the experience that is so necessary for those who serve abroad.
These are some of the difficulties with which the service is faced and I admit that I do not see any easy or wholly satisfactory solution to it. It is a simple statement of fact that in external affairs, as in certain other

branches of government, in business and in some professions, there are not now available in Canada enough men of the required training and experience to fill the posts that should be filled.
Nevertheless and in spite of the difficulties which I have described it has now become apparent that we cannot much longer delay a further extension of our diplomatic representation in Latin America. Mexico is a case particularly in point. I do not think we should longer delay the establishment of a legation in Mexico City, and I hope that provision for such an office will be included in supplementary estimates to be brought down later in the session. Similarly I hope to be able to announce an agreement to open legations in Cuba and Peru. In some way the difficulty of finding personnel will have to be overcome.
Before concluding my discussion of this problem, may I suggest that hon. members who are interested in the problems to which I have briefly referred may find it interesting and useful to examine the recent British white paper on the reorganization of the foreign service of the United Kingdom. Many of the problems with which we are faced here are similar to those for which Mr. Eden and his associates have tried to find solutions. I am not sure that there is any solution that is really satisfactory during the war. But we shall continue our efforts and anything that members of the house can suggest which will assist us to meet our needs, both current and prospective, will be most gratefully received.
Before concluding my comments on this subject I should like to say just a word about one of the questions asked by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). The hon. member will see I have had him in mind right along. On May 5 he asked: "Who is in charge of Latin American affairs in the Department of External Affairs?" The Department of External Affairs is, of course, organized in such a way as to give certain officers definite duties in designated fields. In some cases these fields are based on geographic divisions; in others-questions of international law are an obvious example- they are defined according to subject classifications. The work of all the officers in the department, however, is subject to the review and decision of the under-secretary and ultimately of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Thus it cannot be said that any policy or official action of the department is the responsibility of any specified officer, nor can it properly be said that any officer is "in charge of" any particular field. Thus the only

War Appropriation-External Affairs
fair answer that could be given to the hon. member's question would be that the undersecretary is in charge of Latin American affairs, as he is of all other aspects of departmental activity and that he in turn is under the direction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is finally responsible, subject, of course, to review by parliament for the conduct of our external relations. Under these circumstances I feel that it would be improper to name any individual or individuals in the department as being responsible for or in charge of any specific aspect of departmental activities.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, knowing Latin American people fairly well, and having a number of friends there, I know that one has to deal with them as they would deal with you. They are very courteous. If you go there they look after you, and give you the very best of times. I wonder whom we have here in Ottawa to look after the entertainment of delegates coming from south American or central American countries. Have we anyone who can speak Spanish or Portuguese? I ask that, because a dinner was given here in Ottawa some time ago-I do not know who gave it-but a number of people from South America who could not speak English attended. They simply sat at the table, unable to speak with anyone else. Is there anyone here who could act as host or hostess to such people when they come to Ottawa?
Mr.MACKENZIE KING: I may say to my hon. friend that if he had been in my position he would have known a good deal about the entertainment of some of the gentlemen who do not speak English or French any too freely. In the course of the last few months I have had both the privilege and the pleasure and. I was going to add, also the difficulty, of having to preside at several gatherings at which there have been many persons who were not in a position to speak English, while I unfortunately was not able to speak in other languages. But I am happy to say that through the good offices of different persons in the service, not exclusively in the Department of External Affairs, but through the different branches of the public service in Ottawa, it has been possible on most occasions to assemble together enough members of the public service conversant with other languages and so to place them at entertainments of the kind my hon. friend has mentioned, that the embarrassment caused by differences in language has been pretty much overcome.
From time to time visitors who must be met in the manner the hon. member has indicated come to this city. We seek to find
some way of extending the expected courtesies. As the hon. member is aware, my friend and colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and members of his staff paid a lengthy visit to South America. He reported, just as the hon. member for Peterborough West has to the house, on how very courteous everyone had been, how generous in their entertainment. Since his return he has felt a certain responsibility to look after distinguished persons coming here from South America and to facilitate their business and entertainment during their stay here, and also to see that they might profit from it. It is a difficult problem.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
realize that. That is why I brought it up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend for doing so. I fear that of the many matters with which the Department of External Affairs has to do, probably the most difficult for some people in our country to understand is this matter of social entertainment of foreigners. There are many people who feel that public money should not be used for this purpose. Unfortunately the Minister of Finance has made it so that very few to-day can do very much in the way of entertaining foreigners after the manner in which they entertain us. However, I believe that this country will have to get accustomed to seeing us do in Canada as is done by us in other countries and have some special provision made for and care taken in entertaining members of administrations and distinguished persons coming from foreign countries. I thank my hon. friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the house in the way he has.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would it be possible to send some of the men in the department here to South America or Central America, so that they may become accustomed to the habits of the people there and then when people come up here they will know what they will expect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have been doing that to a limited extent. Our staffs are interchangeable and we have had some members of our service spend some time in South America. At. the present time we have three ministers in South America, and each has a staff. They make a particular point of keeping us advised of persons who are likely to come here and they also assist in making arrangements for their travel and entertainment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do
they speak Spanish or Portuguese?

War Appropriation-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One or two do,
and they have secretaries who are of assistance to them. The situation with regard to our legations is quite similar to that of some of the foreign ministers who are resident in the city here. As my hon. friend knows, legations have been added recently, and! in one or two cases they have been staffed in part by members who thus far have not acquired the use of the English language. But it is remarkable how rapidly they are acquiring it and how well matters have been so arranged as to avoid embarrassment on the score of language. I have just been reminded that our minister in Brazil, Mr. Desy, speaks Portuguese, and that our minister in Chile, Mr. Chipman, speaks Spanish. That is a good beginning.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: After the war is over, we shall have to look to Central America and South America for trade. If we build up friendly relations now, we will get that trade. As the Prime Minister knows, if you want to sell a bill of goods in South America you cannot do it in five or ten minutes like you might here; it may take a month or more.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree entirely with my hon. friend, and I can assure him that that is one of the purposes of our having opened these legations in South America. We desire to encourage a friendly feeling. We must do all we possibly can to train our men to become as well qualified as is possible to fill these posts in foreign countries.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do
the men just stay in Chile or Brazil or Argentina, as the case may be, or do they move about to visit Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, and the other countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Our ministers
have visited other parts of South America from time to time. As situations or occasions arise which are of special interest, they make it a point to visit other parts. I have in mind, by way of example, the fact that in a few weeks' time there is to be a gathering of members of the legal profession in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I believe our minister to Chile, is to address that gathering. As my hon. friend knows, he is an eminent member of the legal profession. It is also being arranged that others from Canada will visit Rio de Janeiro at the same time, and in one or two cases they will, I believe, be able to address the meeting in Spanish or Portuguese.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is any special encouragement being given to the younger men in the

Department of External Affairs to take up Spanish or Portuguese, or are any special facilities provided for the study of these languages?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: WTe are giving all the encouragement we can to the younger men, but, as I have said, most of the young men have been drafted into the armed forces. There has not been the opportunity to get into the service the number of young men we would like. Those who are in the service now are working for all they are worth and do not have much time for extra study. However, such opportunities as can be afforded are being arranged.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would it not be wise to establish scholarships in Spanish for that purpose? We could bring men along to go into the foreign service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a large question, and I would wish to consider pretty carefully as to how it might be viewed by the different provinces, to 'have the dominion government begin to award scholarships. I see no reason why some arrangements could not be made with the universities to encourage students to take up these special languages.


Gordon Graydon: As long as the provinces are on the receiving end they will not worry very much.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Probably not.
I agree t/hat this is one of the avenues that should be explored.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked some questions on Friday last, as reported on page 4596 of Hansard, and I wonder if the Prime Minister could answer them at this time because the hon. member is unavoidably absent from the house to-night on important business: I quote 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:

War Appropriation-External Affairs
"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?
The hon. member points out that this question has been raised by civilians who find themselves in this category.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
asked by the hon. member was referred to the legal adviser of the Department of External Affairs and I have in my hand the reply which he has prepared.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asks:
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?
Canadians working for contractors under such circumstances are not subject only to military law.
As a matter of fact, the position taken by the Canadian government is that such persons, whether Canadians or not, are subject to Canadian law. In the United Kingdom persons in this position are ordinarily subject only to the United States military courts in criminal matters. The only exception is that persons who are not United States citizens do not come within the scope of the legislation unless they enter into their employment outside of the United States.
The position of contractors and their employees has not been referred to the supreme court for consideration. Some authorities take the view that persons who are subject to the military law of a visiting force are exempt from the local criminal jurisdiction, notwithstanding that they are not members of the force. This, however, is a view which has not received the support of the Canadian government.
Mr. GRAYrDON: I think this item is one which provides an opportunity for me to seek some information from the Prime Minister with respect to the relationship of the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of External Affairs. As far as our present
and prospective relations, diplomatic and commercial, with South America are concerned, it has been made abundantly clear during the debate that keen and increasing interest is shown by Canadians in the countries of Central and South America. I daresay that if the war should conclude within a reasonable time, more Canadians would be planning to visit south and central American republics than almost any other place in the world, so great is the interest in the southern portion of this continent. This of course should have its reflection in the policy pursued by the government. It has been rumoured from time to time that there may be some amalgamation or other change of relationship between the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is difficult for a layman to understand how two departments can operate hand in hand without very close relationship in respect of their personnel and the manner in which they carry on their business. Can the Prime Minister give the committee some information on this subject, particularly as it relates to the operations of the departments in the central and south American countries?
I should like to supplement this question with an inquiry whether there is in contemplation any overhaul of or extensive change with regard to, the Department of External Affairs. I notice with some interest that the jurisdiction of the parliamentary assistant to the president of the privy council, to judge from the terms of his appointment, does not cover the Department of External Affairs.
If there is to be an extension of relationships, as to both diplomacy and trade, with the central and south American republics and other nations, it would seem to me that the old structure of the Department of External Affairs, operating in one compartment, and the old structure of the Department of Trade and Commerce, operating in another, might properly be the subject of a complete overhaul to bring the two departments up to date to meet modern conditions and to prevent, in line with the Prime Minister's statement, a considerable strain upon the personnel of these two departments.
In making these remarks I am not casting any reflection on the personnel of the Department of External Affairs. I think the Prime Minister could clarify the attitude of the government and explain what it has in contemplation with respect to making these departments into a working whole, to the benefit and advancement of our relationships with the countries to which I have referred.
4670	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in his seat at the moment, and I shall have to be a little careful of what I say about his department.
I believe, however, he will agree with me that it is most desirable that the two departments should work in the closest possible, not merely harmony, but relationship. But I do not think it would be desirable from the public point of view that the two departments should at any time be merged into one. It is true that each of them operates to a certain extent in similar areas, but there is a distinct difference between the field which has to do with the political side of public affairs in the large sense of the word, the relationship between the governments of different countries on a multitude of subjects, and that which has to do with distinctively commercial and business affairs.


Gordon Graydon: They are pretty closely related, nevertheless.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The commercial side is merely one phase of the work. Trade and commerce has been recognized since the time of confederation as being deserving of a separate department of government with a responsible minister, just as the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Mines and Resources might be. As a matter of fact, it would not be wise that the gentlemen in the capitals of the different states who have to do with diplomatic affairs generally should also be expected to look after the commercial interests of the country.


Gordon Graydon: I never heard that suggested seriously.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That they
should? No, I thought not. But there are always along the way cases arising where the Department of Trade and Commerce would find it absolutely necessary, for the pursuit of its own business in a foreign country, to have very' close relations with the representatives of the Department of External Affairs. I recall many years ago Canada had a business or commercial representative in Japan; I think he was Mr. Preston. He was a representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce in Japan. The then government of Japan would not receive him because he had not diplomatic standing. It was held by the government there, according to diplomatic practice, that the government itself could only be conferred with -if I may use that expression-by one who carried the status necessary to that purpose. The ramifications of the work of the Department of External Affairs are such that one finds so many matters which require the attention of that department that it would
I Mr. G ray don. ]
not be possible to join the two. I would say, however, that for some time the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs have been conferring together to see to what extent it would be possible to make their relationships serve each other's purposes to'a greater degree than they do at the present time, each to facilitate the other's work in as large a measure as possible.
My hon. friend has referred to the fact that there was an appointment of parliamentary assistant to the president of the council and not to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I take advantage of this moment to explain why, to put it in a direct way, I myself have retained the position of Minister of External Affairs while holding the office of Prime Minister at this time of war. I can assure hon. members, and my' hon. friend in particular, that it has not been through any desire on my part to carry the extra portfolio. I would point- out that in time of war nine-tenths of the Prime Minister's work is related to external affairs, and it would be making his task in some ways more difficult were he to try to assume the responsibility of the office of Prime Minister without being responsible as well for external affairs, when practically every decision of vital importance at this time, which has to be made by the Prime Minister, is one that is related to external affairs or would have to come as a recommendation from a minister of external affairs.
I am perhaps stating this in an exaggerated way, but it is impossible to separate the two at this time, and the more so in Canada for the reason that they have never been separated. The Department of External Affairs originated under Sir Wilfrid Laurier's administration, Sir Joseph Pope being the first deputy minister, and from that time to the present the two offices have been actually working together as one, so much so that the Prime Minister gets no appropriation from parliament and what he receives in the way of salary comes to him from external affairs. Matters of bookkeeping and many other things of the Prime Minister's office are managed by external affairs. The two have been carried on, on the business side, pretty much exclusively by the Department of External Affairs.
In not appointing an assistant to the Minister of External Affairs, I have not lost sight of the fact that I am in daily contact with my colleagues, and my colleagues, particularly those who are members of the war committee of the cabinet, are the ones immediately concerned with matters relating to external affairs, so that they are in a position to assist

War Appropriation-External Affairs
me, as in. fact they do. They carry much of the responsibility that I have to assume in that particular position.
There have been placed under the war committee and under the cabinet as a whole, which is presided over by the president of the council, a number of new boards that have recently been appointed, such as the wartime information board. I mention that as one of the most prominent. It is not possible for any minister to keep track of the work of these different boards. There are different heads and chairmen of the boards, but I felt it was desirable to have someone who would be careful to exercise supervision over that aspect of the work, and for that and other reasons I thought it desirable to appoint a special parliamentary assistant to the president of the privy council.
I could enlarge upon what I have said, but I hope I have made clear to the committee that at this time it would be practically impossible to separate the two offices. I think they should be separated, and I hope I may have something to do with seeing that they are; but so long as the war continues I am afraid it will be necessary to keep them together.
I might point out this fact. Australia, as was mentioned by some hon. member, has established a department of external affairs. New Zealand has just done the same. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Fraser, has recently telegraphed me that he himself will feel it necessary to hold the portfolio of minister of external affairs. I can understand that. Hon. members will appreciate the situation.


Gordon Graydon: I may supplement the question I asked by saying this. I think there is justifiable curiosity on the part of the public and of members of this house as to why the parliamentary assistant was given to the president of the privy council, because that did not seem to most of us to be the heavy end of the Prime Minister's department. He has mentioned the wartime information board, and I quite share with him the view that that in itself would not ease the burden that anyone would have to carry, as has perhaps been duly indicated by the discussions in the house. But in addition to that, it does seem to me that if a parliamentary assistant were needed, he was needed more perhaps in the Department of External Affairs than in the office of the president of the privy council, which seemed to be the very much lighter duty, and that prompted my inquiry in the first instance, because I have heard that suggestion made in several quarters since the appointment was made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope that
neither the house nor the parliamentary assistant himself will attempt to construe his functions as so definitely limited that he does not go outside of what immediately comes under the president of the privy council. As my hon. friend- knows, practically all government boards have to be kept more or less under review by the president of the council. There is not one of these boards that at this particular time is not concerned with some aspect of external relations. The war information board, for example might almost be described as carrying on a task more for the Minister of External Affairs than for the president of the council, because it is largely concerned with war information in other countries. It has a phase of work related to Canada, but a very large part of its -work is the dissemination of information in regard to Canada's war effort in the United States, Britain, Australia and other countries. I might mention other boards having similar obligations. Nearly everything that has grown up in the period of the war relates in some way to external affairs, but the boards themselves come more immediately under the purview of the cabinet, and a part of the parliamentary assistant's duties, as he was told when he undertook the task, is to take on anything referred to him by the Prime Minister.


Gordon Graydon: He is a sort of roving
commission, in other words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is a very necessary person to have near at hand in times like the present, and may I say that he has been an exceedingly helpful and able assistant.


Thomas Miller Bell: I, too, was surprised
that when the assistant to the Prime Minister was appointed he was not appointed as assistant to the ministry of external affairs, because it has always seemed to me that the foreign policy of this country required very careful attention by this parliament and that the Prime Minister was giving personal attention to matters about which the house and the country were not well informed. I have in mind the fact that Canada is a small country; yet Canada has played a very important role in this war; and there are many small countries playing important roles in the war, some of which are rather disturbed because they think the major powers, particularly the two English-speaking powers, tend to decide things without sufficient reference to the other members of the united nations and particularly the smaller powers.



War Appropriation-External Affairs
Those of us who have attended various unofficial conferences in the last year, where we have met representatives of countries that might be regarded as small, have become painfully aware of that fact, and one of the interesting things to me has been that Canada is the small country to which they look as spokesman for the whole group of smaller nations. I think that is particularly true because we are English-speaking and many of the smaller countries do not speak the language we speak, while the two great powers, the United States and Great Britain, both speak that language.
Then, too, there have been certain disturbing events: our absence from some of the conferences; the fact that we have not been invited to some of the conferences; the fact that so much has been decided merely by conference between the Prime Minister of Great Britain, whom we all admire, and the great President of the United States. Nonetheless these two countries are only two of the major powers involved in this war. Ever since last autumn when North Africa was invaded-I said something about this the other afternoon- there has been a great deal of discussion of the situation in North Africa, and I want to ask the Prime Minister what our relation is, if any, to the French committee of national liberation. It has been recognized by some of the smaller nations, by Norway, Belgium and some other countries, as the spokesman for France. Yet undoubtedly there is a feeling abroad, and I am free to confess that I share that feeling, that far too much authority has been assumed by the state department of our powerful neighbour to the south. Indeed, in Great Britain, if you follow the British press carefully, you will read a number of articles developing that particular thought and expressing grave concern that if the same kind of policy that was apparent last autumn in North Africa is carried forward into Italy and is attempted also in France when it is liberated, there will be grave danger of discontent leading subsequently to an upheaval in Europe and perhaps even to another world war on different lines from the one in which we are now engaged. I should like to know what our policy is in relation to some of these important matters. What is our relationship, if any, to the French committee of liberation? What should be our attitude regarding the policy pursued by the state department of the United States in relation to the situation in North Africa? Are we as a parliament satisfied with that? Are we prepared to allow the same kind of policy, namely collaboration, not with

Mussolini any more than with Petain, but collaboration nevertheless with people who were very close to the nazi-controlled regime in France or in other countries?
Even now there are suggestions that we might find in Italy persons who have been pretty close to Mussolini, but who are to-day not as close to him and who might head a new government in Italy. There is a good deal of discussion abroad as to what is going to happen in Europe if these near-quislings are to be recognized, and of whether instead we are to recognize the leaders who to-day are very largely underground but are conducting a great struggle against the nazi regime at the risk of their lives. I do not intend to enter into the relative merits of General Giraud and General de Gaulle, because they are together now on the French committee of national liberation and, superficially at least, that committee is functioning with both of them on it. I hope they will remain together. I hope the committee will function under the leadership of these two famous Frenchmen. At the same time I felt that I should ask the Prime Minister what consideration has been given to these problems, and what is the view of Canada in regard to the future of committees of this sort and of the desirability of collaboration with persons who to-day are either leading underground movements in Europe or the undesirability of choosing persons or committees from among the former friends of the regimes we hope to overthrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend mentioned that several small countries had given recognition to the national committee of liberation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Also Russia, I believe.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to say that he did not draw to the attention of the committee the fact that the larger powers, the United Kingdom and the United States, are not among the countries that thus far have recognized the national committee.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In like manner, thus far Canada has not given immediate recognition for reasons that I will make clear in a moment. We have welcomed every move that indicated that the forces under the control of General de Gaulle and those under General Giraud were drawing closer together and that these groups were coming to a common understanding on matters of important policy. We have felt that it would be unwise to take any steps which, if taken

War Appropriation-External Affairs
prematurely might be wrongly interpreted by one or the other of these groups. We believed that it would not be long before the position would be so clear that there would be no doubt at all as to the proper moment for recognition.
I might say that Mr. Dupuy, who has been counsellor to our legation to the governments in London from the occupied countries, has recently been in North Africa. The department asked him to go to North Africa and stay there for a time to size up the situation and give us the benefit of his immediate knowledge as well as his wide experience when we came to discuss the matter in a more final way. He is now in Canada.
The committee will have noticed that General Giraud will be here on Thursday of this week, and we have felt, knowing that General Giraud was coming to Canada, that we would wish to have a conversation with him about the situation before taking any steps.
We have had a representative in Ottawa, as my hon. friend knows, of the de Gaullists. We have been following the situation closely from both sides, and it will not, I think, be long before it will be perfectly eviden which is the right moment at which to give recognition to the French committee on national liberation. The government will take its action at that time.


Thomas Miller Bell: If I may ask a supplementary question, does the Prime Minister consider that it is in conformity with the policies of democratic countries-I will put it this way, of our own democratic country, which is the only one involved, that the French national committee of liberation should be virtually under the control of a United ' States general in the field? My information is, and I may say that it has come from British sources, that this has caused a great deal of misgivings in the underground movement in France itself, and I think one can understand that feeling. I should like to know the Prime Minister's view of that particular wray of handing the French situation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to my hon. friend that this committee has two chairmen, each one of whom is a Frenchman, General Giraud and General de Gaulle, and I do not think I would be helping the situation at all by seeking to cast reflections on one or the other.
Mr. COLDW'ELL: I did not mean that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the form in which my hon. friend's question is put makes it pretty difficult for me to answer it without doing that. I do not think he so intended.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, I did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Similarly my hon. friend asked me if I thought a certain policy of the United States state department was correct. I do not think it is for a member of the Canadian government to reflect on policies of the government of another country.


Thomas Miller Bell: I did not intend to reflect on the state department of the United States, or on the fact that General Eisenhower practically had the right to approve this committee. I did not mean that. I believe that as one of the united nations we must frankly face, either here or in a closed session, some of the implications of this whole situation. I can see that we are going to be in the same situation as we were before the war when we had no independent policy, no policy of our own. I think that is true, and by following the line of least resistance we allowed our influence to be unused, when it could have been used in a more constructive way. I am anxious to see that we do not fall into that position again.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to follow the line of argument of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Because our present relations in North Africa are so delicate, I can see no useful purpose being served by discussing them in any great detail in the House of Commons.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is the old story.


Gordon Graydon: That may be a good answer from my hon. friend's point of view, but I think the public generally will have some sympathy for the position I take. I refer now to his statement with respect to General Eisenhower's position in the North African theatre of war. I think everyone has to recognize that this is something more than a political matter; it is a military matter as well, and one which is fraught with all kinds of possibilities, particularly so at a time when we are beginning an offensive which has given us a foothold on European soil. I do feel at this time that no useful purpose can be served by discussing at this long distance the matters which were raised. In saying that, I do not desire to reflect in an unfriendly way upon my hon. friend.

War Appropriation-External Affairs
I take it from the Prime Minister's remarks that our position as Canadians in the North African political situation is this: we are taking whatever steps are necessary in collaboration with the United States and Great Britain, and we are working in close harmony with them. I should be surprised to hear that that was not the situation. I should like to have assurance from the Prime Minister that the matter is being carefully and harmoniously worked out, having in mind with regard to both the military and the political situation the other great powers who are interested with us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say to my hon. friend that right along, by that I mean ever since North Africa came into the picture, there has been the closest collaboration between our government and the British government and our government and the United States government with respect to all the questions that were likely to be of common concern; and certainly this one is foremost among the number.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, last Friday
night at eleven o'clock the hon. member for Yale asked the Prime Minister if he intended to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi before the item in committee is passed, or if he will make his speech on another item. The answer of the Prime Minister was as follows:
I have been making notes of the various points raised. I shall try to get them in order between now and the beginning of next week, and may endeavour to answer them all pretty much at the same time.
We appear to be drawing toward the close of this long drawn-out debate, and I was wondering if the Prime Minister would make any statement in answer to my hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was hoping I would feel sure enough of my ground after one day's discussion to take up, in concluding the discussion, the different points that had been raised, but up to this moment I have not been any too sure it is at an end. However, I had no intention of overlooking the questions which were asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and which were asked again this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West. The question was as to what the government proposed to do with respect to the Japanese nationals in this country when the war was over, whether we would see that they returned to Japan. First of all I thank my hon. friend for the implied compliment that this government will be necessarily in office when the war is over and will have to do

with post-war matters. I should like to oblige him at once by telling him what the government's policy at that time will be; but what I would say to him as to what the government's policy at that time will be will depend upon the times, as they may be, and upon what the situation may be at that moment. My hon. friend will realize we have to-day as one of our allies the United States of America; that in dealing with all matters relating to the Pacific our two countries have been keeping very closely in touch with each other. I should rather hestitate at this moment, without either the war being concluded or an opportunity of conference with governments of allies, to make a pronouncement upon war policies which affect the whole of the oriental situation. I do not think that I should be expected to do so or that it would be wise to do so. May I give a very clear reason as to why it would be unwise to make a pronouncement of the kind.
The hon. member for Kootenay West this afternoon said that if we reached the time where Japan saw that she was getting the better of the situation, some of the Japanese nationals in Canada might cause a good deal of trouble and we would have a good deal of difficulty with them. He said at the present time they were not causing any embarrassment. I cannot imagine that we are going to come to a time where Japan will be justified in assuming that she will have the last word in this war. I am pretty certain that she will not. However, take the present situation. At the present time, according to what the hon. member has said, the situation is quiescent, or at least there is no difficulty arising because of the Japanese in this country. But I ask the hon. member what the situation would be to-morrow if I were to make a pronouncement to-day which would be of the character that the hon. member for Comox-Albemi would wish me to make. Does he think we would be able to handle the situation within Canada itself as well from now to the end of the war as we are able to do to-day, and as we have dealt with it thus far. I do not believe I can say more than that. When the time comes, if the government is in office we shall certainly have a policy that will be very clear; it will be a policy that will be the result of mature consideration with those that we believe should be consulted meanwhile, and it will be made known at the right time to the country.


Victor Quelch: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister if the papers dealing with the international stabilization of currency will be

War Appropriation

External Affairs .
dealt with at this time, or whether they should be dealt with when the estimates of the Minister of Finance are before the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think stabilization of currency would come more appropriately under the heading of finance than under any other heading.


Gordon Graydon: I was a little bit surprised at the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with respect to the policy relating to the Japanese situation. There is a feeling across Canada that this is a Canadian problem rather than a British Columbia problem alone. I am not desirous, as the Prime Minister knows, of raising questions that will embarrass the government in the handling of delicate problems, because I believe such a course is inexcusable at all times, but I believe that the Prime Minister ought to make it clear whether or not the policy of not declaring the government's intention with respect to the Japanese population in Canada is dictated from fear with respect to the internal situation of Canada in regard to the Japanese, or whether it is dictated by some influence it may have on the Japanese with respect to reprisals on the part of the Japanese empire. I do not want to press the Prime Minister unnecessarily on this point. I do not want to take upon myself the job of urging him to take a position that will in any way jeopardize our position as a nation or interfere with our security. But I do believe there is a strong and ever-growing body of public opinion in Canada that is asking the government to deal in some direct way with the Japanese problem which was raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I do not think the Prime Minister's answer to him will be received with the kind of approbation in Canada that a forthright statement of policies would bring from the people. I quite understand the Prime Minister will not agree with me when I say that this kind of statement has some elements of appeasement in it. I do not wish to convey that idea unnecessarily to him. Nevertheless there will be a great section in this country who will believe that it has many of the elements or factors of appeasement in it. I think in these times, if we as a nation cannot make a definite statement with respect to enemy populations within our gates, while a war is on, then it will be more difficult to persuade governments to take forthright steps when peace comes. As I say, I do not wish unnecessarily to press the point. Nevertheless I think the Prime Minister ought to know that there is quite a strong body of public opinion
in Canada which feels that the government ought to make some forthright declaration on the point.


Mr. STIRLING:: Before the Prime Minister answers, I should like to ask him whether he realizes the natural anxiety in the minds of those people in the southern part of British Columbia, where three-quarters of the Japanese removed from the protected area now are. They are in camps, in these empty towns which have been fitted up for them. They are in work camps in outlying places. People in the southern part of British Columbia, east of the protected area, now find themselves the recipients of 18,000 Japanese. They realize that the people in the protected area will not look with equanimity on the return of the Japanese to that part. They know that the agreements with the three provinces which have received Japanese contain a clause to the effect that the Japanese shall be removed. The people whom I represent see the danger of these Japanese being returned to that part of British Columbia where there are already 18,000 of them. I wonder if the Prime Minister realizes what I call the natural anxiety of those people, and whether he will consider making a statement which would tend to relieve that natural anxiety.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Answering the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) first. The government has already made it clear that it was appreciated that the bringing of a number of Japanese into these ghost towns, so-called, was naturally creating a situation which would not be regarded as pleasant or desirable if it were a continuing one, and that an effort would be made to see that that situation was relieved as early as possible. That was clear, and the government of course will hold to that. The arrangements made internally have been made to meet the existing emergent situation in the best and quickest possible way. They have never been intended as permanent arrangements, and certainly those communities most affected at the present time ought to be and, I believe will be, first considered when the time comes that it is possible to help relieve the situation.
Then, may I say to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) that when he talks about appeasement I am afraid he is using a word in its application to the situation now existing between Japan and Canada the full significance of which he possibly has not appreciated. I assure my hon. friend this government has done nothing with any desire to appease the Japanese. But I ask him, and I ask his colleagues whether he or they believe
4676	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
a pronouncement on my part to-night which would indicate a vindictive attitude on the part of Canada toward Japanese nationals in this country would be welcomed by Canadians who are prisoners of war in Japan at this time. I ask him whether such a pronouncement would be welcomed by Canadian civilians who are now in Japan. It is very easy to proceed in a light-hearted way to condemn the government for not coming out and making this or that pronouncement, without so much as considering what the effect of such a pronouncement might be. It may be all very well to have one's mind on politics in British Columbia, but to forget the effect of politics in the whole of Canada, in a wartime situation such as we have at present is a serious matter.


Gordon Graydon: Does the right hon. gentleman say that I had in mind politics in British Columbia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I say that the mere mention of appeasement to-day is to use a word which is used for political purposes. It is not used1 for the public good.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a point of order. May I say to the Prime Minister that I felt in rising on this point that I was taking perhaps as reasonable a stand with the Prime Minister as one man could with another. So far as appeasement is concerned, may I say that I used the word with the feeling that there would be a section of the country who would regard it as an appeasement policy. And more than that, I think if my right hon. friend would recall my words he must admit that his reply wras quite unwarranted. I had no thoughts in the matter, except that there are many people, in fact a great section of our people in Canada, who feel that some forthright declaration should be made by the Prime Minister. I asked the Prime Minister to reply, but I told him particularly that I was not urging or pressing him if indeed there was some question of public security involved.
I thought I was being just as fair as anyone could possibly be under the circumstances.
I do not wish the Prime Minister to undertake to place insinuations cn matters I discuss.
I raised the matter, not with the thought of politics in British Columbia, or politics anywhere else across the whole Dominion of Canada. I do not wish the Prime Minister to insinuate unfairly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say to my hon. friend that he knows as well as I the significance attaching in the public mind to the word " appeasement." He knows how the 
public view a charge of appeasement against a government in this time of war. And if he did not wish to be misunderstood he should have chosen his word more carefully. However, I am quite prepared to drop the matter there. I have made it clear, I think, first of all that there will be time enough to state what the government's post-war policy is when the war is won. I do not think the government should be expected at this time, when we are seeking to win a war, and have very close relationships with our allies in different parts of the worlds to make pronouncements without even a conference with them, when the situation is one' which might affect them as well as ourselves. We should not be called upon or be expected to make pronouncements of policy which have not been considered in relation to the time and the situation to which they will relate. That is only common sense in the business of government. I think the public will see the reasonableness of that position.
I do hope I have made it clear, as the committee well knows, that there are a number of our own Canadian soldiers to-day in prison camps in Japan. Also a number of our civilians are in that country. And I ask the committee whether in those circumstances hon. members believe it would be in the interest of Canada and in the interest of her men who have fought overseas and become prisoners of war, to make a pronouncement which might only serve to inflame the Japanese mind.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister's
remarks partly answer the question I asked. If he will recall, I asked whether or not it was a question of an internal condition which prompted the government not to make a declaration, and whether there was any question of reprisals over there. If it is on the latter basis then, as the Prime Minister indicated, is that the only basis upon which the government is actually proceeding in connection with this line of policy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have given two or three statements already. I said it is not on general grounds. I do not think a government that is governed by common sense would attempt to make pronouncements with respect to hypothetical situations. When we know what the situation is that we have to face, we will deal with it in the light of existing conditions.


Gordon Graydon: That would really do away with the question of post-war planning so far as the government is concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. GREEN:: What progress has been made in the negotiations leading to a further exchange of Canadian and Japanese nationals? I understand that last year between forty and fifty Japanese were returned in exchange for Canadians. On two or three occasions during the present session a similar question has been placed on the order paper, and in each case the answer has been that negotiations are under way. I should like the Prime Minister to tell us the situation at the present time with regard to these negotiations. Would he tell us also the approximate number of Japanese nationals in Canada who have signified a wish to be exchanged during the war? I believe that quite a few have asked to be sent back, and it would be interesting to know the approximate number. A second question has to do with a statute passed in 1913 known as the Japanese Treaty Act, which really made Canada a party to a treaty between Great Britain and Japan. In one of the articles of the treaty there is a provision for termination on notice, after a certain lapse of time. I presume the fact that we are at war would cancel the agreement, but I do not know whether it would repeal the statute. There is certain British Columbia legislation which has been held to be ultra vires because of this dominion statute known as the Japanese Treaty Act. I should like to know if consideration has been given to having this act repealed. It would seem to me that that is a step which should be taken. Finally, now that we are at war with Japan, would it be possible to have the Lemieux agreement tabled in the house? As the Prime Minister knows, this agreement was negotiated with Japan in 1907 or 1908, and I think he personally had something to do with the negotiations. It has never been tabled and I am wondering whether thore is any reason why it should not be now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to
the exchange of nationals, I understand that a second ship is leaving Japan shortly, if it has not already done so. It will be bringing some Canadian nationals back to Canada and will be taking Japanese nationals back to Japan.


Howard Charles Green: How many are going back
from Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say offhand. I am informed that the one ship is not only for Canada, but is also for the
United States and certain South American countries. The second repatriation party is expected to leave this summer, returning Japanese from Canada, the United States and South America. That is the information I have and I cannot give more than that. As to the number who have applied, I would ask that this question stand and I shall try to get the information. In connection with treaties, war puts an end to them. I am not sufficient of a legal authority to say offhand whether the provisions of a statute which relates to these matters would simultaneously be regarded as coming to an end, but I shall endeavour to get definite information on that point. I certainly think in effect it would be at an end; if it is not, there would appear to be no reason why it should not be repealed.


Howard Charles Green: The difficulty is that it makes certain British Columbia legislation invalid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend has raised the question and I shall have it looked into. I do not see any reason why the Lemieux agreement should not be tabled. I shall endeavour to get the particulars and have them tabled.


Gordon Graydon: Could we have the estimated number of Canadian nationals now in Japan? The Prime Minister may not have this information at the moment, but perhaps he would not mind getting it if it is available.


Alan Webster Neill: I think it is about 9,000, if my hon. friend wishes to know. The Japanese in Canada are divided roughly into three. One-third are nationals still subjects of Japan; the second third are nationals who have been naturalized, and the third third are Japanese who have been born in Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
gentleman is giving the number of Japanese in Canada; the leader of the opposition asked for the number of Canadian nationals in Japan.


Alan Webster Neill: Like the leader of the opposition, I feel a sense of grievance at being accused in the language of the Prime Minister that any suggestion as to methods of dealing with this important subject should be put down to the cheapest form of political intrigue, or even worse than that, the suggestion that we are almost, if not wholly disloyal in connection with the steps to be taken for the carrying on of the war and the subsequent peace. The Prime Minister tells us that it is against common sense to look forward to what we should do in certain given circumstances.

War Appropriation-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend must not misconstrue what I have said. I did not say that it was not common sense. to look forward to what should be done. Those were not my words at all. I spoke about stating a definite policy with reference to a situation which one did not know at the present time and could not say what it might be.


Alan Webster Neill: There is really not much difference between the interpretation I put on it and the language of the Prime Minister, although his words may be more dignified. In planning an election, what is the first thing every party gets out? They get out a platform. What is that platform but a declaration of policy which, if returned to power, they are prepared to carry out. The Liberals formulated a platform, I think in 1919, and so far as I know, that platform is still being carried out, or it is supposed to be. From time to time reference is made to it. It is a long time from 1919 to 1943, and if we are still following that platform as a chart laid down in 1919, there must have been men of great vision in those days who could foresee and lay down a definite policy that would be followed out so many years in the future.
I have been associated with this question of the Japanese for many years, and I certainly do not like the suggestion that I am animated by the cheapest sense of political ambition. I am occasionally accused of that in the press, but I think I can leave it to my constituents and to my province to decide whether that accusation is justified. The Prime Minister has said that our nationals who are in Japan may suffer if suggestions similar to those which I have expressed at different times are carried out. But what should be considered is the difference between the oriental and the occidental mind. The Prime Minister thinks that if our dealings are fair, if we do not do anything unjust to the Japanese, in the same spirit they will treat our men over there in a similar manner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say that. I never said the Japanese would treat our men fairly; I said they might be very much more vindictive than they are-which is a very different thing.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, I was putting it on the right side: if we treated them decently they would treat us decently. Now the Prime Minister says he did not say this; he said, if we did not take care we would be subject to reprisals-if you will allow me to use that word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I did not.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, then, it would be the worse for our prisoners in Japan if we indicated what our policy was going to be. Here I come down to the difference between the occidental and the oriental. All that Japan would gather from any action of that kind, supposing we said, "Now, we are going to give you Japs everything after the war," would be that we are afraid of them. The oriental's mind works like that; he would say, "We can do anything we like to our Canadian prisoners, because these people are afraid of us." If the Prime Minister took a bold stand and said, "We are going to do thus and so"; and if he has any suspicion of reprisals, he could add the pronounced warning that we, the people of Canada, wall definitely punish those people who have not treated our men according to the recognized usage of prisoners of war; that would come home to the Jap. If the Jap thinks he is going to be punished he will be very much more careful about what he does than if you tell him that you will treat him as a gentleman and expect him to act as a gentleman. I make that very clear, and heaven knows I am the last to do anything which would imperil our men over there. But I sincerely believe that a policy of indefiniteness-for I do not want to use offensive language-will hurt our men over there, because it will convince the Japanese mind that Japan can afford to play fast and loose with us, whereas were he boldly and definitely warned, as long ago the United States warned Germany, and it would have been becoming for us to have warned Japan at the very first suggestion of impropriety-warned as to what the international rules of the Geneva convention required, and that if they were not adhered to to their utmost extent, there would be, not reprisals, but punishments accruing after the war to those who directly and indirectly were responsible,
I am convinced that that point of view and that action would appeal more to their mentality than any suggestion of soft-pedalling our rights in the hope of influencing them favourably. I cannot remember the author of the poem, but there is a verse running in my mind something like this:
Still the bold brave man is fortunate He keeps his object ever full in sight;
True t'is a narrow way that leads to bliss But right before there is no precipice.
Fear makes men look aside And so their footing miss.
Courage and boldness should be our policy, not expediency.

War Appropriation-External Affairs


Thomas Miller Bell: I have no sympathy with the people who want to appease Japan; in fact I have been more than a little disturbed when I have heard statements made that perhaps after the war a strong Japan in the far east may be a useful counterbalance in Asia. We should make it very clear to the Japanese that any atrocities committed on our nationals in Japan at the present time will be punished to the utmost of our power when the war is over; I believe the effect would be beneficial.
But I rose to say two things: this is one of them. I heard a very wise Chinese gentleman say a few months ago that we-that is the United States and Canada-had placed one of the finest propaganda weapons in the hands of the Japanese by our treatment of the Japanese in Canada and the United States during this war; that over the air from Tokyo to the people of the east went the story that these people in North America had torn up the roots of people, some of whom had been born of Japanese parentage in these countries, that we had taken their property away from them, and had placed them in internment camps, whereas German nationals and Italian nationals of the second and third generation had not been so treated; and over the air from Japan went the story, "that is because these people are of a different colour." There was the racial angle placed in the hands of the Japanese war lords to use as an effective propaganda weapon. Therefore I can see the point made by the Prime Minister to-night. We should, it seems to me, make it very clear that we are out to destroy Japanese power once and for all, that when this war is over we are going to punish those upon whom we can lay our hands who are responsible for any atrocities, but to my mind we should be careful lest we raise an issue in Asia which may be very difficult for us to meet in the future and moreover may interfere with our winning over of the Asiatic populations to our side during the war.
The other thing I rose to say was that a short time ago we had a visit in this chamber from a very charming lady, the wife of the Generalissimo of China, and when she was speaking to this house my mind ran over the situation in this country both before the war and at the present time. I happen to have to-night with me a dispatch which was filed by the Canadian Press as long ago as November 15, 1937, from Brussels. Hon. members will recollect that in October, 1937, a conference was held at Brussels regarding the situation in China, to give China moral support. At that time the Chinese delegation issued a
statement. A part of that statement refers to Canada. I am going to remind the committee of what it was:
Canada has been a substantial contributor to Japan's weapon of war, according to a statement issued by the Chinese delegation to the nine-power treaty conference to-day.
The statement analyses Japan's dependence on foreign supplies for raw materials. It says that in 1936 Japan imported aluminum, used in aircraft manufacture, valued at 12 million yen ($3,480,000). Of this Canada furnished 71-7 per cent.
In the same year Japan imported 33 million yen worth of copper, of which Canada furnished 97-11 per cent.
In the same pa pet there followed a comparative table issued from Ottawa showing the increases in our sales to Japan last year.
That was 1936. It seems to me that we owe a debt to China. We have supplied her enemy with the wherewithal to make war. A few days ago, on the seventh day of the seventh month, China began her seventh year of war, and during the last six dreary years the Chinese people have suffered terrific casualties. I know, and I believe hon. members know, that wherever we meet educated Chinese ladies or gentlemen, sooner or later the conversation will drift around to the position of the Chinese in North America and in Canada. We have very few Chinese in this country and they are becoming fewer. I believe the time has come when we shall be able to make an agreement with the Chinese government so that there will be no danger of an influx of Chinese into our country. Of course no more are coming in now. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be a very fine gesture at this time on the part of Canada if we said to those Chinese who are in our midst, "We are going to treat you as we treat other people; as a token to your countrymen, we are going to treat you now as we treat all others who have come to us from other countries; thus we are going to give you equal status as Canadian citizens." I say that there is no danger of any influx. They are here. We know that in many respects they have performed useful functions and many of us, particularly those living on the western plains, have received many a kindness from a Chinese restaurant keeper or a Chinese settled in our midst. It seems to me that the sacrifices their country has made might be recognized in this way. I may say that a short time ago in Washington I had the privilege of listening for a few minutes to representations seeking the repeal of the United States exclusion law. We have few Chinese people here, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that some consideration be given
4680	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs
to this manner of showing our appreciation of what the Chinese nation has done for us in its long struggle.


Mr. TURGEON:: The hon. gentleman is making that suggestion from the federal point of view. Is there any federal legislation or regulation now that takes the vote away from the Chinese or that prevents them from voting in any province?


Thomas Miller Bell: I think that where provincial legislation exists, as it does in some provinces, our government, recognizing the services that the Chinese have rendered to the democratic nations in this war, might approach the provincial governments with a view to removing these barriers for the few Chinese in this country, thus conferring upon them the rights of full dominion citizenship.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Does the hon.
gentleman suggest the same for the Japanese?


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not referring to the Japanese. I made my position clear as far as the Japanese are concerned, but my hon. friend knows that their disability is felt very keenly by educated Chinese ladies and gentlemen who come to this country, and when we acclaim the distinguished wife of the head of the Chinese government in this chamber, surely the position that many of our Chinese citizens, as Chinese residents, find themselves in, is at least incongruous.


James Gray Turgeon: Can the hon. gentleman really say that there is any resentment among the Chinese against the Dominion of Canada in connection with their lack of the voting privilege in some provinces? There is against the province, but can he say there is any against Canada?


Thomas Miller Bell: Many of the Chinese fail to understand and to recognize the distinction between the provincial and dominion franchise.


James Gray Turgeon: The Chinese in British Columbia have always been without the franchise and they recognize the distinction.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I tell the hon. member for Cariboo that I am not talking about the Chinese in British Columbia.


James Gray Turgeon: But they do recognize the distinction.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am talking about the Chinese who visit this country, the Chinese one finds around our legations and embassies or who visit Canada. Those are the ones to whom I am referring, not the laundrymen or restaurant keepers one sees in British Columbia, but the educated Chinese gentleman who

feels that his compatriots are not treated as they should be treated by Canada. They fail to make the distinction that the hon. member for Cariboo makes.


James Gray Turgeon: What is the benefit of saying in this house something that will confirm the feeling that a resident of China may have, which is wrong, that Canada as a nation is taking the franchise from or refusing to give it to Chinese in Canada? What is the good of making a representation of that kind in this house? His fear is only confirmed.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have made my position clear. My voice can be heard only in this chamber. I do not speak in the legislature of British Columbia. I am a citizen of Canada. I heard Madame Chiang Kai-shek in this chamber, and I am suggesting to the Prime Minister that approaches might be made by our government to the provinces in which there are disabilities for the removal of those disabilities.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does that go for the Japanese too?


Thomas Miller Bell: I made my position clear regarding the Japanese. I am talking about the Chinese, who are our allies, and not about the Japanese, who are our enemies.


Mr. REID:: With regard to the treatment which it is said we have been according the Japanese'nationals in this country, I do not think we need be unduly perturbed over that.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope not.


Thomas Reid: Anyone who knows anything about the Japanese knows that they themselves inculcate in their children, from the day they are born, right through life, that they are a superior oriental race, distinct and apart. They are the sons of heaven in their own eyes. As I said in my speech the other day, they look down upon us as an inferior race. We need not therefore be perturbed so far as they are concerned. What I wanted to say was this, and I say it with the Prime Minister present. Very often people get up in this country, when some of us undertake to speak about the Japanese and to put before the people the facts as they are, andi immediately tell us what we should do. I repeat that if any of the Japanese born in this country are to remain in this country, the first step that should be taken should be taken by the Japanese themselves; and no Japanese has so far taken the first step in the direction of real Canadian citizenship, for the reason that everyone of them owes allegiance to Japan, whether born in this country or not. We have

War Appropriation-External Affairs
never heard one of them stand up and say to Japan, "You are not our country; we were born here, we are Canadian citizens." I challenge any hon. member to show one instance, in the long life of the Japanese in this country, where one of them has made it apparent that he is a true Canadian citizen.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was not discussing the Japanese.


Thomas Reid: I am making a few remarks
along the lines of the speech I made a few nights ago, and I am pointing out to those people who blame us for not doing something for the Japanese, that the Japanese have done nothing themselves in this regard, and until they take the step I suggest-and I speak of those bom in this country-I do not see how we can do anything to make them: truly Canadian. The mere accident of birth does not make them Canadians, though under the law it does. I am speaking of those who owe allegiance to two countries, and I say that no man can be a truly Canadian citizen who owes allegiance in the first instance to Japan, or for that matter to any other country. I was one of those who, in the days before the war, pointed out that we had done a great injustice to the Chinese in excluding them, while at the same time we allowed the Japanese to come in at the rate of 150 a year. I could not see the sense or the righteousness of that, because both are oriental or Mongolian races; and yet we have a Chinese Exclusion Act. I and others as well advocated one for the Japanese, but there were always reasons advanced why we could not do that so far as the Japanese were concerned. Had we done so, our condition would not have been any worse to-day and it might have been better; for, if we had taken a strong stand in those days and said to Japan, "We are closing the door," we would have settled the matter. I may be contradicted in this, but we are following too much the policy of Great Britain. We should settle our own affairs and decide who should settle in this land after the war; and as regards those who are not truly Canadian. citizens, I would say that they should go to the country to which they owe allegiance.


William Kemble Esling: I hope the Prime Minister will fully understand my reference this afternoon to 8,000 Japanese in my own district. I do not know about the reception they have met with in other districts; but I did say that their attitude in Kootenay West was tranquil, but that when the time came and the allies would be devoting their attention
exclusively to Japan, then perhaps that attitude might change and become a dangerous one, particularly where there are so many power plants and bridges nearby. I hope the Prime Minister will not misunderstand our attitude. If he had 8,000 Japanese in Prince Albert and 4,000 recalcitrant Doukhobors, he would feel concerned about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I share the
concern of my hon. friend. I do not say he is wrong in fearing possible consequences from having numbers of Japanese in his community. But I do say that a declaration to-day of the character that I have been asked to make would not help to make the situation any easier. It would make it more difficult.


Roy Theodore Graham: In justice to a very brave man and a very fine citizen of Japanese origin, I cannot let the statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster go unchallenged1. I have in mind a young Japanese who served with distinction in my own company in France and wffio was decorated by this nation. He saved the life of one of his comrades by performing a very brave deed. He came back and settled in my district where he is now farming and is one of the most highly respected farmers in his particular area. To-day he has two sons serving with the Canadian forces in this war.
While I am on my feet I want to say this with respect to Canada's foreign policy. I could not hope to use the eloquent language used by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George the other day in describing Canada's position and its relationship to the British commonwealth of nations. I was delighted with his address. He is one of the prominent young Liberals of this house, who, given good health, may in the days to come speak with some weight in the councils of the party. I wish to associate myself fully with the interpretation he gave of the place that Canada occupies as a nation and in its very fine relationship to the British commonwealth of nations.
I want to say, too, that we are in the same danger in this country as they were in Great Britain at one period when a group known as Little Englanders arose. We must not be Little Canadians or Little Imperialists. We must be big in our mental approach to the tremendous problems that we shall have to face in the post-war period if we are to justify the fine record we have had in this war. While we think this war period is our great testing time, let us keep in mind that we are all bound together by certain ties of common purpose and that, despite our political differences, that

War Appropriation-External Affairs
tie is there as a moving spirit among the Canadian people. But as we approach victory there is a danger of the tie loosening, as the problems become greater. I view the future with a great deal of concern lest the Canadian people lose some of that unity which is necessary even to approach, let alone solve, the problems that will come to this world when peace is declared.
I wish to put myself on record as saying that Canada's post-war policy in relation to other countries must never be one of hatred or of revenge. It seems to me that if we think in terms of hatred and revenge we shall lose the great opportunity we shall have then to accomplish so much of what we desire to accomplish. Burke's famous statement has lost none of its truth by frequent repetition that in truth you cannot indict a nation, and it will be impossible to indict either Germany or Japan, and this despite all the cruelties and barbarities that Germany and Japan have committed. In our own enlightened self-interest we must keep in mind that there are some seventy millions of human beings living in the Japanese empire and some seventy or more million human beings who call themselves German, and our task will be to find in some way, somehow, a means of educating and training these Germans and Japanese-yes, and Italians-to fit into the new heaven and new earth we speak about. We must have within our own policy the principle of justice rather than of hatred and revenge. I hope that in this house during the war period ive shall be prepared to leave these matters that are bound to create a great deal of controversy to the judgment of the Prime Minister, whose whole history shows his wise tolerance and understanding of the problems with which we are confronted in Canada. I think we can safely assume that he will deal wisely with these problems in their international aspect.


Alan Webster Neill: If I may ask a question, what percentage is one out of 25,937?


Roy Theodore Graham: I might have mentioned an exception, but I remember that Japanese boy who served with me, and I was extremely proud of his record and could not allow the statement of the hon. member for New Westminster to go unchallenged.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member could probably find more cases than he mentioned, but it seems rather strange that when the Japanese were being removed from the British Columbia coast, and the provincial governments were asked if they would take them, every provincial government, so far as I know, said, 
Yes, we will take them on one condition. That condition was that they would be removed after the war from these other provinces. Are we in British Columbia for ever more to be told that this is simply a British Columbia problem, and when we air our grievances we have it hurled at us that we are Japanese haters, when every province took the stand, we will take these Japanese only if you remove them from our province after the war? If the Japanese are all fine citizens, I would ask the hon. member to explain this stand that was taken by all the provincial governments of Canada.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the Prime Minister make a brief statement on the question I raised this afternoon regarding Canada-Newfoundland relations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before I reply to my hon. friend. I would not like the suggestion that was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to pass without a word of acknowledgment. May I say that I believe the people of Canada realize that we have had no more gallant ally than we have had in the Chinese, that the sacrifices which the people of China have made in the past seven years have been an immense contribution to the security of this entire continent. Our people have not only come to know but greatly to admire, and, I will go further and say, to have a real affection for the Chinese people. Knowing that, when the government opened a legation in China we expressed to our minister the hope that when he reached Chungking he would explain to the government of China that there were certain difficulties in dealing with the problems which arose between us and the people of China on account of special circumstances in our own country. We asked him to explain the situation very fully and make it perfectly clear that the present administration hoped to be able to work out a solution which would remove any cause on their part to feel that they were being discriminated against as a race.
The Chinese people understand clearly that there is an economic problem of which we on this side have to take full account. Madame Chiang Kai-shek said in my hearing that the Chinese would not misunderstand an arrangement between China and Canada which would take account of the fact that we had certain economic standards which we must carefully preserve. But what she felt was that the Chinese people very much hoped and expected that they would be looked upon by Canadians as people who are entitled to be dealt with

War Appropriation-External Affairs
as equals and not as inferiors. The inference was clear that she hoped some arrangement would be made to remove anything which would cause their people grounds for real offence. I would say that the government is carefully going into these different problems, and I hope that before very long some of the present restrictions, or whatever one may wish to call them, which have been imposed for economic reasons, may be removed, in a way that will take away what of offence there is in them and the economic problem satisfactorily met.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the Prime Minister indicate to us what disabilities Madame Chiang Kai-shek mentioned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One she might have mentioned was exclusion, the nature of the exclusion laws, and I must say I think in that a mistake has been made. Perhaps I should not talk about mistakes being made, but I must say I can see no reason why the Chinese should not have been treated exactly as the Japanese were treated in the matter of the gentlemen's agreement with Japan restricting numbers. I think they were more entitled to an agreement of the kind-certainly in the light of what has happened since the war-than the Japanese were.


John Horne Blackmore: Did Madame Chiang Kai-shek give any hint as to the number of Chinese she felt Canada should accept within her boundaries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think Madame Chiang Kai-shek felt that there were many Chinese students who would like to attend our universities, just as Chinese students have been attending universities in the United States, and that there were others who might wish to come for special reasons; that an arrangement which would take cognizance of the fact that there were certain classes or individuals who might come to our country, and that we might send similar classes of our own to their country, would be all to the good of both countries. I believe it should be possible to work out a reciprocal arrangement betweeen Canada and China which would be helpful to both countries.


Grote Stirling: Can Chinese students not do that now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I remember some years ago trying to make it possible to bring in a number of Chinese students and I encountered great difficulties in the matter.


John Horne Blackmore: What was the reason given-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor.


John Horne Blackmore: What was the reason given that they were not allowed to come in?


Thomas Reid: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that in any future policy dealing with the Chinese or the Japanese the problem be not left a British Columbia problem. Too long we have carried the load in this country. We were sneered at for years and years. This is an economic problem as well as a racial one, and in any future policy I would ask the Prime Minister to see that British Columbia is relieved of the burden she has carried for forty years.


John Horne Blackmore: Since we are on this Chinese question we may as well see if we can arrive at some sort of agreement in the matter. If the Chinese are to be admitted to this country to live, then the question immediately arises as to how many of them should be admitted. How would you determine the number? Although I have said nothing up to the present time in this house on the problem of the Chinese, yet I have given the matter considerable attention for a good many years. I should be pleased if the Prime Minister would give us some idea as to how far the first lady of China felt we should go in Canada. It is easy to see, if we opened the door to any extent at all, what might happen. China possesses almost four hundred million people. If we allow any considerable number to come to Canada, they would utterly overwhelm us so far as numbers are concerned. 1, should like to get some conception of the extent to which this lady would wish us to go in order that she might feel better about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the members of this house will be well advised not to attempt to take up too many subjects that might be controversial at this particular time. However carefully hon. members may seek to express their views, there are bound to be certain expressions used which will be misconstrued in some quarters. My hon. friend has just now been referring to questions of millions in China as against small numbers here. That remark when it is read in China to-morrow will sound quite differently to many Chinese ears from what it does to those of us who know my hon. friend and know his heart and his inclinations. I think for that reason, among others, we would be well advised not to get into a general discussion or try to reach final agree-

War Appropriation-External Affairs
ments or settlements at this particular time in a consideration of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to answer the question I raised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will just say the same thing to my hon. friend. While I believe there is a time to consider the question of what is advisable and what may not be advisable with respect to having Newfoundland brought into confederation, this is not the particular moment at which it would be most advisable to discuss the question. As the hon. member knows, the government of Canada is most desirous of preserving the closest possible friendly relations with Newfoundland. We have given expression to our desire in the appointment of a high commissioner of the attainments which he himself has mentioned, in the person of Mr. Burchell. Mr. Burchell has given very careful study to the questions that arise between both the Newfoundland and Canadian governments, Newfoundland and the United States, Newfoundland and Great Britain, and I think he would be the first to say that any discussion with respect to the possible bringing in of Newfoundland to confederation ought to be initiated on the part of the people of Newfoundland rather than on the part of members of this house certainly at this particular time. I took note of what my hon. friend had said, and I prepared with a little care the following words that I thought it might be wise to use if occasion shoidd so demand. I would say that Canadians like and admire the people of Newfoundland. They are attached to them by bonds of sentiment and by the memory of dangers shared and victories won together.-They look forward to a continuation of the friendship and cooperation which have increasingly marked our relations during recent years. Canadians are interested in the defence of Newfoundland which is so vital a part of the defence of the continent and the hemisphere. They hope that the people of Newfoundland will find some wholly satisfactory solution of the political and economic problems which confront them. They will be happy if, in any way, they can contribute to the solution of these problems, many of which are common to both countries.
If the people of Newfoundland should ever decide that they wish to enter the Canadian federation and should make that decision clear beyond all possibility of misunderstanding, Canada would give most sympathetic consideration to the proposal.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I
wish to say this to the Prime Minister with respect to what he said a minute ago regarding the Chinese. So far as the remarks being repeated in China and having an effect upon the Chinese feelings are concerned, I would say that the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would be exactly of the kind that would greatly disturb these people. Why the Prime Minister should limit the discussion when I asked a question in an endeavour to arrive at some definite indication of what the first lady of China did request, I really cannot see. I do not know why the Prime Minister should object to that question, but if he does, then we shall pass it by. However, I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that I have sat in this house for seven years, and it is simply astounding to me how many problems are like the one the Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago. I know this is a question that is of vital concern to the country, and hon. members want to discuss it. When one tries to get something definite the Prime Minister finds some reason or another for deferring the discussion. For example, he said it was highly inflammatory to discuss sending materials to Japan, about which the Chinese now complain- bitterly. If we discussed this matter before the Japanese entered the war or even before there was a war, we were told we might offend the Japanese and cause much trouble. Now, you see what happened. Instead of the house coming to some sort of definite conclusion, and the government telling the house frankly in private session, if needs be, we just let things drift. A similar thing has happened with respect to the Japanese. I am not making a pronouncement on the question of the Japanese at this time, nor do I propose to do so. But as I said on Friday, I have an idea as to how the matter should be taken care of. And it was partly because of that idea that I asked the Prime Minister a question about China.
We started many years ago to make representations with respect to the Japanese. Hon. members from British Columbia have been here to Ottawa, doing everything in their mortal power to arouse Ottawa-and with just a hundred per cent failure. The result is that the people of British Columbia have been suffering a serious injustice and have been led to feel in a way that no province in Canada should be forced to feel. And still the problem is unsolved. If we go on at our present rate, or the rate we have taken in the last twenty years, it will be unsolved

War Appropriation-External Affairs
seven hundred years from to-day. Surely the time should come when we might discuss these matters to a conclusion, and get somewhere.
As I said, I am not going to urge this matter upon the Prime Minister. But I am telling him how I feel about deferring the discussion of a good many of these matters. I referred on Friday night to a problem facing us in Alberta, one which is rapidly growing worse. If it continues for another forty or fifty years, it will probably reach the point where it will be beyond solution. There may be bloodshed as a result of it. Yet we can get no help at all from Ottawa. Ottawa brought the people into the country, planted them on our doorstep, went away and said, "Now it is up to you." And every move we make to solve the problem Ottawa says, "No, no, you must not do that; naughty, naughty; spank your hands!" Well, if we think that is the way to run a country like Canada, then I say our opinions are open to some considerable revision. In a general way I believe I have delivered myself of my thoughts along that line.
I should like for a moment to revert to the remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) in connection with this matter of the British empire. Friday and to-day we have heard much discussion regarding Canada's relationship with the British empire. Although I have listened with most attentive care, I have not been able to arrive at a clear conception of what hon. members have in mind. I thought the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) was trying to read a lecture to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) because of some remarks he had made in support of the British empire. When I examined with great care the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, as reported in Hansard, I found it very difficult to find any difference between the two of them. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George will not go far enough to say he wishes to cut this country right out of the empire. He arose much disturbed this afternoon because it had been suggested in the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was an isolationist. Well, where does he stand? And where do these men who believe as he believes stand? What do they want?
I would ask the Prime Minister two or three questions, to see whether he can enlighten us, or whether he will say that this is a problem which ought not to be discussed
in war time. Is he prepared to accept the remarks of the Right Hon. Anthony Eden, as reported, that the British commonwealth of nations is a blueprint of the future organization of the nations of the world, or that it is a blueprint or a new order for the new organization of nations.
Before the Prime Minister answers, may I point out to him that there are a number of us who are at a loss to know what was in the minds of hon. members when they talked about supranational governments. I say the house ought to have clearly in mind just exactly what the government proposes. If needs be, it should be given us in a secret session. But, above all, surely members of parliament ought to know exactly what the government has in mind, and what it means when it uses a certain phrase.
I was much pleased when the Right Hon. Anthony Eden said that the British commonwealth of nations was a blueprint of the new organization of the nations of the world. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell me whether I was misinformed regarding Mr. Eden's remarks, and whether he agrees with Mr. Eden in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not sure what Mr. Eden meant by a blueprint. He might have one thing in mind, and I might have another. However, I always have felt the British commonwealth of nations was certainly a pattern on which the world might well seek to organize itself. It would be a community of nations, all of which gained a measure of mutual security through belonging to one great entity such as the commonwealth of nations. If to-morrow Canada were to be out of the British commonwealth of nations, she would have to find some nations with which she would wish to be associated sufficiently closely to find security in that association. And I think in all probability she would return immediately to the group with which at the moment she is associated, because I doubt if there could be a better group. I should like to see that pattern extended. I think it would mean everything to the world if it could be so organized that all countries were free and independent, in a position to cooperate freely with each other, held together by a common bond of allegiance to a crown, representative of sovereignty, such as we give to our sovereign to-day.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


John Horne Blackmore: No, we are not finished yet. It is just as well not to put on pressure.
<686	COMMONS
War Appropriation-External Affairs


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe the committee has reached the stage where we cannot much longer permit repetition. It is a fact that there is no rule precluding repetition in committee. However, I have in mind the discussion on the Japanese question, a matter which has been before us on four other occasions, and I would ask some hon. members not to repeat what they have said many times before.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I believe I am not repeating what has already been said. I am merely seeking clarification. The reply of the Prime Minister, as nearly as I could judge from listening to him, would be exactly the concept most hon. members on this side of the house would have. I believe that would be exactly the concept of Social Credit-ers, and I am almost positive it would be the concept of the Progressive Conservative party. That being so, then why all the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George who seemed to be endeavouring to indicate a trace of difference between his point of view and that of hon. members opposite? You see, the reply by the Prime Minister deprives the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George of any sense. There is no question about that. I wonder if the hon. member for Swift Current will agree entirely with what the Prime Minister has said. And if he does, then how can he agree entirely with what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has said?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was no difference.


John Horne Blackmore: If there is no difference between what was said by the Prime Minister and what was said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, then evidently the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was trying to make a distinction without a difference. I note that the hon. member for Swift Current shakes his head; evidently there is still some confusion in his mind.
I say that in discussing Canada's foreign policy this matter ought to be cleared up. If the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, notwithstanding all that has been said, can see any difference between his point of view and that of the hon. member for Lethbridge, then I think he should explain so that the hon. member for Lethbridge can understand. I do not think I-


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: No; it is not carried, and I can tell hon. members that calling out "carried" is not going to carry this item one minute sooner. In fact, it is likely to take a good deal longer. Let us have that perfectly clear.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would point out to the hon. member for Lethbridge that he has no right to use threats. I believe it is the wish of the committee that there should be no repetition and also that these items should go through as soon as possible.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no doubt that they would like .to see the items passed, and so would I. But I want to have certain matters cleared up. Does the Prime Minister believe that to-day Canada has all the autonomy under the British empire that she should have? Is there room for her to increase her autonomy under the British empire?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what my hon. friend means by autonomy under the British empire.


John Horne Blackmore: Within the British empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Within the British empire I think Canada has just as much autonomy as has the United Kingdom. I believe we are masters of our own house in all particulars, with relation to both our domestic and external affairs. As compared one to the other, we are all equal in status and united by a common allegiance to the crown.


John Horne Blackmore: That is most enlightening, because I have gathered from the remarks of three or four members who have spoken that they can see that as a result of this war Canada is going to go forward to some fuller measure of nationhood than she had before. I have heard hon. members state outside the house-they have not said it inside the house-that the fact that Canada had declared war in her own right was a step forward in the development of the autonomy of Canada. In other words, before Canada declared war in 1939, Canada did not possess the autonomy that she would dream of possessing, or the autonomy which she will possess from now on. That, of course, takes the point from the Prime Minister's answer, and it will be seen why there is confusion in these matters. If I am wrong, I should be glad to be put right on the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Representation abroad, $111,500.
Gordon Graydon: About three weeks ago I made an inquiry of the government based upon a report from Stockholm, Sweden, to the effect that some representation to Canada was in contemplation by the Swedish government. At the time the Prime Minister

War Appropriation-External Affairs
answered that so far as Canada was concerned there had been no intimation officially between the two governments, and I was wondering if there had been any change in the situation since that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since my hon. friend asked me that question the Swedish consul general at Montreal called upon me and intimated that the government of Sweden would like to appoint a mission to Canada and wished to know whether it would be agreeable to our country to have a Swedish legation opened here and whether we would reciprocate. I outlined to the Swedish consul general, as I have to the house, the difficulties we were confronted with in the matter of personnel required for legations abroad and that we had hoped before this year to have opened a legation in Mexico and in one or two other countries. I told him I could not give an assurance that a legation would be opened immediately in Sweden, but we would be prepared to receive a mission here on the understanding that later on we would reciprocate, but that we might find it desirable to have a charge d'affaires in charge of our legation in Sweden in the first instance rather than a minister.


Gordon Graydon: Are there any exchanges of diplomatic representatives under consideration in addition to those mentioned already by the Prime Minister?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In these matters that relate to the representation of different countries the practice more or less followed is not to disclose in advance the intentions of the government. Possibly I had better not attempt to say more than that we do expect in the course of time to open additional legations.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister tell us in a general way, with some detail, what are the duties of the legations for which we are paying under this vote? Choose any one at random and tell us what its duties are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report of the Department of External Affairs gives rather full particulars of the services which the different legations have rendered. Perhaps my hon. friend would allow me to refer him to that report. I think he will get full particulars there.


John Horne Blackmore: Does that mean that we cannot have the answer to this question appear in Hansard?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the full particulars are in a government report, when I have given my hon. friend the information
in a form that can be referred to, why should he wish to have it placed on Hansard? It is not going to alter the business of the legations in the least if the information with regard to them is given in a report rather than in Hansard.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it not the right of members when they are being asked to provide money to ask what the money is being spent for?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have referred my hon. friend to a report which will give him the full particulars. I think I am quite within my rights, and indeed I am only helping to conserve- the money of the country by referring my hon. friend to a report which will give him full particulars, instead of placing the report on Hansard as he suggests.


John Horne Blackmore: If every minister replied as the Prime Minister has done, by referring the questioner to reference books and reports, there would be an end of the examination of the minister in committee by members of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the year ended December 31, 1942, was prepared in order that hon. members might be fully informed in advance of any discussion of the duties and responsibilities of the officials who are connected with the legations and of the services performed by the legations. I submit that my hon. friend is asking a question which in the circumstances is wholly unnecessary. He knows in a general way that the business of a legation is to carry on official dealings and relations with governments of other countries in connection with the questions that may arise or are of interest and concern between them. Where there is public business to be carried out, it is carried out by means of diplomats who serve as officials of legations. What the details of that business may be, I cannot begin to go into at the moment.


Mr. CHURCH:: In view of the war being in its fourth year, I think this might well be an off year in the appointing of foreign representatives.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would suggest to the hon. member for Broadview that this matter has been discussed several times already. I do not think the members of the committee are in a mood to have a repetition of discussion.


Thomas Langton Church: As I understand it, this
item covers representation abroad, $111,500. I was going to suggest that in the interests of economy no appointments should be made

War Appropriation-External Affairs
during this fiscal year. Several of these representatives have been appointed, and I have always been opposed to such appointments because they duplicate the work of our trade commissioners. They also duplicate the work of the British representatives in the different countries. These appointments cause divisions. I suggest that now we have gone pretty nearly far enough. I read to-day the speech of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. If this is the policy of the government, to appoint ambassadors over the seven seas, new representatives here, there, and everywhere, we might just as well get out of the British empire altogether. We have no representative in one fine country to which Mr. Churchill referred the other day, and which may be appropriately mentioned to-day. I refer to Ulster. Ulster has no direct representation in this country, nor we in hers, but we might well recall the great tribute paid a few days ago by the Prime Minister of Britain to that little country which is never mentioned here.
I suggest that in the interests of harmony in the British empire we suspend any more appointments of representatives abroad. There are one or two of them in Toronto. One of them, the representative of China, -was most insulting to the city of Toronto. He went to New York, and from there to China, and1 allow me to say that if he causes as much division in China as he caused in Toronto he is no fit representative of this country. He has not the training. How are these ministers and others appointed? What is their background? Have they ever had any training in diplomacy? I doubt if our representative who went to China knows enough Chinese to walk into any office over there and carry on a conversation with the Chinese. We are just duplicating our representatives abroad, making believe that we are a separate state when we are not. We are part and parcel of the British empire. There is no point in multiplying our representatives abroad and indulging in all these forms of what I call separatism, particularly in time of war. It is bad enough in peace time, but even more disastrous in war time. I suggest that in this direction we take a holiday in the coming year. We have pretty'well covered the seven seas already with our representatives, and I do not know any other place we can send them to at the present time. I sincerely hope that in the interests of economy there will be a cessation of appointments of ministers plenipotentiary and envoys extraordinary-and I can tell you a whole lot of them are extraordinary.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Carried?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is
"sundry services."


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No; I included them.


Gordon Graydon: I do not want to delay
this item, but as regards sundry services, following our usual custom on the war appropriation items, perhaps the Prime Minister would give us a break-down as to the services he is calling for here. No doubt he has a list.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe some provision is to be made for extra representation: I am informed that it includes also the cost of cable charges, teletype services to Washington, and matters of that kind.


Gordon Graydon: I would be satisfied if
the Prime Minister at another sitting would place the information on Hansard. I do not want to delay the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 13, 1943