1941-11-03

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Before the house enters upon the proceedings of this afternoon, I regret to have to announce to hon. members the passing of one of our number in the period of the recess which we have just had. Mr. Arthur Damude, the fete member for Welland, passed away on the fifteenth of September at the comparatively early age of fifty-two years.
Mr. Damude entered the House of Commons in 1935 and was returned as a member at the last general elections. He was of a retiring disposition and took little part in the discussions in the house. He was, however, faithful in attendance, followed the proceedings of the house closely, and was very helpful on committees. He was keenly interested in the social problems of the day, and had given much of his time and thought particularly to the welfare of labour and also of those who are engaged in agriculture.
In his own constituency as a younger man, he had taken part in municipal affairs and in the work of local charitable institutions. Those of us on this side who knew him well will miss him greatly, because he was one of the most companionable of men and one of the most loyal of friends and supporters. He had the promise of many years of useful service before him. Unfortunately he has been taken away at this early age.
Mr. Damude suffered bereavement in the loss of his wife only a short time before his own death. There is only one member of the family left, Lieutenant Ross Damude, who is in the Canadian armed forces. I am sure it would be the wish of hon. members that we should express to Lieutenant Damude something of the great respect we have for his father's memory. It will be revered by all who knew him, and he will long be remembered by the citizens whom he served so well.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to add my tribute to the memory of our late colleague. Mr. Arthur B. Damude was still in the prime of life, fifty-two years of age. He evidently had a flair for public service because he was a candidate for the House of Commons on two
Mr. J. S. Woodsworth

occasions prior to his election. His ambition culminated in his election by a substantial majority in 1935 and again in 1940. I have no doubt that he contributed a great deal to the public life of his county, besides making his contribution here in parliament.
I regret to say that I did not know Mr. Damude personally. During the brief time since I came here in 1940, I do not recall that I ever had the privilege of meeting him. I suggest to you, sir, and to this house, that his untimely death at the comparatively early age of fifty-two exemplifies how fleeting is human life and how heavy the toll among those in public life.
I desire to associate myself with the Prime Minister in all that he has said and in extending to the family of the deceased member our very sincere sympathy.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J.T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services): I wish to table the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth reports of the special committee on war expenditures.

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the daily remuneration, including living and travelling expenses, of Mr. W. N. Tilley, K.C., for the investigation and report referred to by the hon. Minister of Air, and the hon. member for Cumberland, on the orders of the day, May 30, 1941?
2.	How much has been paid to him?
3.	Did he send a final account?
4.	If not, what accounts did he send to the government to date?


Mr. POWER:: Mr. Tilley has not nor does he intend to render an account for his services or personal expenses resulting from his investigation into the development of the Eastern Passage aerodrome.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What are the names of those who tendered for the supply of coal to the post office and dominion experimental farm at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, during the years 1936-1941, inclusive?
2.	What was the amount of each tender?

3.	What are the names of the successful tenderers and the amount of their respective tenders?


Mr. HOWE:: Return tabled.


MR. J. S. WOODSWORTH CONGRATULATIONS ON HIS RETURN TO THE HOUSE AFTER ILLNESS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it
will be the wish of hon. members of the house that I should say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) how pleased we all are to see him again in his place to-day. As we all know, my hon. friend is leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and as such has been unsparing in the time and energy he has devoted not only to the work of that political party but particularly to his duties in this parliament. Many of us felt that at times he worked far too hard; he did not spare himself but overtaxed his energies and occasionally those of the government as well. We were genuinely sorry when we learned that he had suffered a somewhat serious indisposition, which kept him away from Ottawa during practically the whole of the last and all of the present session of the house, but we are delighted to have him back to-day. I can assure him that on all sides of the house there is genuine pleasure at the progress he has made in regaining his strength. We hope he may find it possible to continue to attend the sittings of the house, and that he will enjoy a complete recovery of his health.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, may I trespass upon the time of the house to add just a word to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and I entered this house in the same year. I think I can safely say that during most of the intervening time we have not thought alike on public questions, but on one point I am sure I can agree with my right hon. friend and with all other hon. members of this house; that is, how glad we are to see the hon. member back, I trust in improved health. I hope the time will come when he will be able to bear his full share of the duties and responsibilities of this house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be well, Mr. NOVEMBER 3, 1941	4045
Business of the House-Long Adjournment
Speaker, if I were to say a word about the reassembling of parliament to-day, if only to remind hon. members of the stage of the session we have reached. As hon. members will recall, the house adjourned on June 14 last, at which time I made a motion, which was carried unanimously, that we should reassemble to-day. This date was fixed with the idea of deciding in the light of circumstances at this time whether it would be better to continue the present session for such time as might be necessary, and begin a new session in the new year, or whether it would be preferable to do as we did last year and meet simply to prorogue, beginning the new session before the end of the present year.
I think the experience of last year went to show that beginning a new session at the end of the year simply meant that when we resumed after the Christmas adjournment, much of the time of the house was taken up in debating anew questions which had been the subject of discussion in the debate on the speech from the throne, and that in the end public business would be expedited, and certainly expenditure lessened, if the house were to meet at the beginning of the new year for its third session rather than before the close of the present year. It is therefore the intention of the government not to call parliament together for the new session until some time in January, at a date which I shall be glad to fix after conference with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the leaders of other parties.
I want to make it clear that in coming to this decision the government has had in view first of all what would best serve the interests of the public and secondary, but still imports ant, what would best serve to meet the convenience of hon. members. Beginning a new session at once or within the next few days would mean that hon. members would have to secure living accommodation in the city for a short period and then either hold it until after the beginning of the new year or risk losing it altogether by letting it go meanwhile. With the difficulty that now exists in securing accommodation in the capital we have felt that to begin a new session at once would entail unnecessary inconvenience and expense to many hon. members. On the other hand I should like to make it quite clear that while we are at the end of the second session of the present parliament the government has no desire to terminate the session before hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as those on this side, wish to have it terminated. We are here to answer any questions which the opposition may wish to ask the government; to give to the country information which we
believe the country will wish to have at this stage, with regard to the progress of Canada's war effort, and also to give information on other public matters as to which hon. members or the country may wish to be informed. When that part of the work is over I will introduce a motion similar to the one I introduced in June, that the house adjourn until a date then fixed for early in the new year. I am careful to say "adjourned" again. I do bo because I know it is the wish of hon. members that at this time of war parliament should be kept in session so that if between now and the end of the year a critical situation should arise which would render it desirable that hon. members be brought quickly together, the session would not be terminated and hon. members could be called together at very short notice. If we were to prorogue it might take a longer time to bring hon. members back. But if there should be no occasion to reconvene the house between now and the end of the year, we will begin the new session as has been more or less customary in the first month of the new year.
I have thought that to-day hon. members would probably wish to have from me a statement in the nature of a review of the international situation as it has developed since we last met together. Since the commencement of the war, it has been customary to make a statement of the kind, at the beginning of a new session or after an adjournment of any length of time, and if hon. members are agreeable I shall make that statement this afternoon. Further proceedings for to-day is a matter which may well be left to the house itself to decide. I would suggest that it might be advisable for the leader of the opposition and myself to meet with the leaders of other groups, and also for the whips to confer with some of the hon. members, to see if between to-day and to-morrow we might not find it possible to agree upon a procedure which would facilitate the work of the balance of the session. It is the desire of the government as far as possible to proceed in accordance with the general wishes of the house.
Speaking of procedure I am reminded that, in common with some other hon. members, I had to-day the pleasure of being present at a meeting of the Canadian and Rotary clubs, of Ottawa, and of hearing a splendid address by the Right Hon. Clement Attlee, Lord Privy Seal in the government of Great Britain. In the course of his address Mr. Attlee spoke of our parliamentary institutions. From his exceptional experience both as a leader of the opposition and deputy leader of a government, and from having served in both party and
4046	COMMONS
Business oj the House-Long Adjournment
national governments, he made clear to those present that one of the virtues or advantages of the British system of government is that it always has a way of meeting whatever situation may arise and of having its procedure work out smoothly. He pointed out that, so far as procedure in the House of Commons was concerned, that very desirable result was obtained by conferences between the leaders of parties and groups, and their whips. When I made my suggestion as to procedure that portion of Mr. Attlee's remarks was much in my mind.
However, my chief purpose in introducing Mr. Attlee's name at this moment is to say on behalf of the government and parliament of Canada, and on behalf of the Canadian people, how pleased we all are that Mr. Attlee has found it possible in the short time he is able to spend on this side of the Atlantic, in attendance at the conference in New York of the International Labour Office, to spare sufficient time to visit Canada, to deliver public addresses and to see something at first hand of the war effort of our country. His visit will afford him a fuller knowledge than would otherwise have been possible of the position of Canada in the war. He will be able to take back to the people of Britain no uncertain assurance of the intention of men and women of all classes and in all parts of Canada to put forth their utmost effort in the winning of the war. We are gratified indeed that one who is not only the leader of a political party in Great Britain but who has played such an important part in British public life especially in the furtherance of all that is best in industrial relations, as well as in the interests of his country in a time of war, has been able to spend these days with us. I am pleased to be able to avail myself of this opportunity to express our appreciation of Mr. Attlee's visit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I Should like to
associate myself with the expressions of welcome the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has extended to the Right Hon. Clement Attlee. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Attlee on an all too brief occasion in September, and I was greatly impressed by his dynamic personality. On behalf of those surrounding me may I add my word of welcome to that of the Prime Minister. I hope Mr. Attlee's stay in Canada will be a pleasant one, and that he will take back happy recollections of his all too few days here with us.
With respect to the Prime Minister's statement in connection with the business of the session which remains to be disposed of, when parliament adjourned on June 14 my under-

standing was that the house would reassemble on November 3, the date then fixed. It was my further understanding that the house would prorogue and that a new session would begin immediately, as was done a year ago. So far as this party is concerned, that would have been a satisfactory solution. It does seem to me that, other things being equal, it would be well that this session should be brought to a close, because, may I remind hon. members, it is just a little under a year since this session was opened on November 7, 1940.
Something, however, has occurred to alter the government's decision in that respect, and I am not controverting the suggestion which.has been made. As the Prime Minister has said, if we were to prorogue, and then open a new' session and debate the address, as we did a year ago, what was said in that debate might be repeated later in the same session. I have seen that happen, and in my opinion it is not conducive to progress in our deliberations.
But why should the government not have some business ready for parliament at this time? We have been away from Ottawa for almost five months. Is there no necessity for legislation? Is there no necessity for motions for supply or ways and means, or for other government business which would afford hon. members an opportunity of doing some work? One of the crying needs in the House of Commons is that private members should be given something more to do than they have been given in the past. I am not going to dwell upon the point I have made more than once, namely that having delegated to the executive all the powers they Have asked for or could think of

and I do not know what more thej' could ask for or think of than they now have-parliament has really been reduced in status to that of a debating society. So far as the executive are concerned it would apnear that the only procedure required is to call us together from time to time to pass such supply as they may require. I do not believe that is the will of the people of Canada, even in war time. I suggest to my right hon. friend and his colleagues that they give some consideration to submitting to parliament national problems which arise from time to time, so that at least the people's representatives may have an opportunity to express their opinions.
Looking at the order paper I find that government orders are only three in number. The first is for the third reading of a bill in the name of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). It has been on the order paper for many months, and I understand the minister does not intend to proceed

Business oj the House-Long Adjournment
with it. The second order is a pro forma notice in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), for committee of supply, and the third order is for committee of ways and means.
I do not know under what order of business the house may proceed to discuss public questions. I am glad the Prime Minister has extended the invitation to which he has referred, so that we may talk matters over and make arrangements under which opportunity will be given to hon. members to express their opinions in the house. While I have a rough knowledge of the rules of procedure, I am not an authority, but from my understanding I would assume that whatever is done will have to be done by consent.
So far as we are concerned we will of course cooperate. I do'wish, however, that in relation to measures of national importance (he government would consider taking us into their confidence, and would remember that we are still living in a democracy. I do not say this in any querulous spirit; I am simply asserting a principle. The people's elected representatives are still the representatives of the people, and while we have delegated all kinds of authority to government, it does not follow' that the people's elected representatives have given to this or any other government carte blanche to do as it pleases by order in council. I commend these observations particularly to my right hon. friend, and I do so even in war time

because he will recall, as I do, w'hat a steadfast opponent he has been of rule by royal commissions and orders in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I do not
intend to debate this matter, but I should like to give a word of explanation concerning one of the points which my hon. friend has raised. He has referred to the fact that there is no business on the order paper. The reason for that is that the session was really over when we adjourned. The purpose of the adjournment till to-day was simply to keep parliament in session to meet any emergency that might arise before the session wTas prorogued. We are not therefore proceeding simply as we please by order in council but rather under the authority which parliament has given us in the enactments which w'ere passed at this very session. I want to make that clear.
May I remind hon. members of the circumstances which last year occasioned two sessions beginning in the one year. As will be recalled, in 1940 we had a general election in the early part of the year. Then we had a session of parliament in the late spring and early summer. The second session, the one we are now in,
started in the late autumn of 1940. This was done largely to suit the convenience of hon. members who, in addition to the session, had also been through a general election. Instead of continuing the session, we entered immediately upon a new session. It has been the custom in parliament for some years past to have the different sessions identified with the calendar years. The government feels that it will be found best in the end that the second session of parliament should end in this year, 1941, and the third session begin in 1942.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group would like to associate themselves with the welcome extended by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson)) to Right Hon. Clement Attlee, Lord Privy Seal in the imperial cabinet. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Attlee some five years ago at the labour party conference which took place that year in Edinburgh. I believe Mr. Attlee has since been in the very thick of things and I am glad to know that he and the party which he represents are working to-day for the cause of democracy.
May I also on behalf of this group thank the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition for their kind references to our leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). We all missed him, and it is very gratifying to know that others missed him. It is one of the glories of democracy that while we may differ fundamentally, we are ready to recognize the character and worth of other individuals. That is one of the things that we hope to maintain when this war is over. It is one of the things that does not exist in the totalitarian state-there you either conform or you are liquidated.
In regard to the business of this session, we of this group think it would be a calamity if we were to depart without being able to discuss the questions which are foremost in the minds of the people of Canada. There is a great deal of misgiving as well as a great deal of inquiry, and I think it would be a bad thing for the government if we were to be sent back home, after some of us have come great distances, without having discussed many of the questions in which our people are interested.
I am not at all sure about the rules, but I notice that item No. 2 on the order paper for to-day, under Government Orders, says, "House again in committee of supply." I believe the Prime Minister could move accordingly, make his statement, and then those of us who wish to speak would have an opportunity of doing so. Otherwise this item on the order paper has really no sense. If we are satisfied that we shall have an opportunity of discussing
4048	COMMONS
Business of the House-Long Adjournment
these matters we shall be glad to cooperate and expedite the work which should be done before we leave.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not repeat what has been said already in respect to the visit- of the distinguished gentleman from Great Britain, Right Hon. Clement Attlee, and the welcome extended to one whom we have learned to respect, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I simply concur in the remarks that have been made.
As to the procedure to be followed in the present session, it has seemed to me, particularly since the war, that this parliament has gradually become a parliament of the government instead of remaining a parliament of the people. Private members' days have been almost obliterated. I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when he says that there is nothing on the order paper. I can see notices of motions to the extent of twenty, but I realize that since private members' days have gone by the board, these resolutions will never be discussed. Some of them cover matters that are most important to Canada in these days. I think I express the view of many private members when I say that if parliament is to sit and adjourn again and again, some time during the year should be given to private members in order that we may discuss matters which perhaps can be presented only by a private member, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should make the necessary provision to that end.
So far as the present session is concerned, the members of this group have always shown a willingness to cooperate in expediting the business of the house. We are ready to do so again, but we also want to serve the country to the best of our ability.



JOY OIL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): May I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply whether he has yet received a report from the Department of Justice with regard to the advertisement which the Joy Oil company had in the press of this country?
Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not seen it myself but I shall be glad to make inquiries.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Is it the intention of the Minister of National War Services to move concurrence in interim reports 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the special committee on war expenditures laid on the table of the house this day?


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: I do not think there is any intention of making a motion of concurrence.


Ernest George Hansell: In view of the minister's suggestion that there will not be a motion for concurrence in the reports of the committee, may I ask whether an opportunity will be given at any time for the house to discuss those reports?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think this house will follow the practice at Westminster. I do not recall that at Westminster there is any motion of concurrence in the reports of the various committees. Whether there will be any opportunity to discuss the matters contained in the committee's reports will have to be determined later.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: May I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health whether the committee set up last session to consider pensions for non-pensioned widows of deceased soldiers has made a report, and, if so, when it will be tabled?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health):	The only
report was the one presented by the committee of this house on June 13 last. That report is now before the house, and I shall be glad before the session ends to make a statement with reference to the action taken by the government.



QUESTION OF BONUS TO PENSIONS OF SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether the government has considered granting a bonus to the pensions of soldiers of the great war?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: A great deal of consideration has been given to a large number of problems allied to that

The War-International Situation
which the hon. gentleman has mentioned, but I am not in a position to make any statement with reference to it.



LABOUR DISPUTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Is it the intention of the Minister of Labour to give the house during the present session reports on the McKinnon Industries strike and the slow-down strike of coal miners in Nova Scotia?
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: I think as the business of the house
progresses a statement can be given if desired in connection with both these matters.



THE AVAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in the review of the war which I gave to the house just before its adjournment on June 14 last, I sought to impress upon hon. members that it was inevitable that the existing conflict between the forces of aggression and the defenders of freedom would continue to spread from nation to nation, from ocean to ocean, and from continent to continent. Since the middle of June, the war has grown in intensity and extent. Threats have become realities; prophecies have been fulfilled, and fears have been turned into terrors.
The period of the parliamentary adjournment witnessed a vast expansion of the area of conflict in Europe; continuous, though desultory, fighting in north Africa; increasing tension and uncertainty over vast areas in Asia. In all the countries of north and south America, there has been growing concern as to the consequences of the struggle, immediate and remote, to themselves.
Two years of continuous aggression by Germany have made increasingly clear not only her pattern of aggression and the aim of her successive conquests, but, above all, the might of her military power. The organized strength and size of Germany's war machine is the all-important military factor in the world to-day. No doubt remains that world conquest is Germany's aim; there is equally no doubt her method of world conquest is intended to follow successive Stages of military, economic and political control. All
peoples are beginning to perceive that behind the intrigues, the deceptions, and the horrors of nazi Germany and the revolting brutality of her methods of warfare, will be found plans and designs progressively developed from those which inspired and guided Prussian militarism under Bismarck and Wilhelm II. The war machine with which the forces of freedom are faced to-day is not only vaster in extent than anything hitherto conceived, but its sources of power are more deeply and firmly rooted.
Every conceivable means by which freedom can be crushed is to-day being employed by nazi Germany. AVe may expect that for some time yet her might will continue its sway, and violence and bloodshed on a growing scale be a part of the human lot. This is an appalling prospect. Until its ghastly potentialities are squarely faced in all quarters of the globe, the sufferings of humanity may be expected to increase.
Since our adjournment, the outstanding development has been, of course, the Russian campaign. It is scarcely possible to believe, but it is nevertheless true, that when we adjourned no one in authority could say whether, before we met again, Russia would be fighting at the side of Germany, or would be attacked by Germany, or whether her ultimate plans and intentions would continue to remain obscure. The real attitude of Russia to the war had been obscure ever since August, 1939, when she signed the nonaggression pact with nazi Germany. That agreement made it appear that Russia had become an ally of the aggressor nations. Up to the moment of the attack it was, I think, generally believed that war would not come between Germany and Russia. It seemed more probable that Russia would yield to German pressure, to an extent sufficient to afford Germany some accommodation, and at the same time enable Russia, for a still longer period, to remain out of the war altogether.
The fact that Hitler attacked Russia when he did, and as he did, may yet turn out to be the most important event of the whole war. To form an estimate of the significance of its consequences for other peoples and countries, we need only ask ourselves what the situation would be to-day had Hitler turned the might of nazi Germany's power elsewhere than upon the Soviet Union! I will not ask what the present situation might have been if the power which Russia has so magnificently exhibited in resisting Germany had, instead been joined with German power in attack upon Britain and British interests throughout the world. We must indeed be profoundly grateful to the Providence which has spared the British com-

The War-International Situation
monwealth such an ordeal. But we should, I think, also look beneath the surface of Russian resistance into the heart of the Russian peasant. From him we may learn that nothing is quite so precious as the freedom of one's own homeland. In the Russian resistance and all that it signifies, we find the surest ground for belief in the ultimate triumph of the forces of freedom.
I am not in a position to answer the question: Why did Hitler attack Russia when and as he did? I am prepared, however, to suggest three reasons. Each in itself might be a sufficient reason. All three, taken in combination, afford, I believe, the true answer.
Hitler attacked Russia, first of all, for the same reason that he invaded other neutral countries of Europe, as a stage in Germany's march toward world conquest. The conquest of Russia would, he knew, bring the whole of Europe under his control.
Secondly, Hitler believed it would prove in the end to be the quickest and surest way to gain his larger objective of destroying the British empire. In the face of British resistance and American aid to the democratic powers, he had come to see that the conflict would be much longer and harder than he had anticipated. He recognized that fresh sources of supply were an essential means to any decisive victory. He feared without them the war might end only with the exhaustion of the civil populations and the armed forces of both sides alike.
A third reason-which I am sure was as powerful as either of the others-was that Hitler himself mistrusted Russia. He had every reason to believe that Russia could never be really friendly to a Hitlerite Germany. He no doubt expected that Russia, following tactics similar to his own, and those employed by his Italian partner, would continue to wait, while he pressed his campaign elsewhere, watching for the hour at which nazi Germany might become most vulnerable. In the hour of decisive conflict with the democracies Hitler did not wish to risk an attack from behind. His fear was the long-standing German fear of a war on two fronts. Hitler's success in exploiting hostility to Russian communism in his own rise to power, and as the key to his close association with Italy and Japan, forced him to recognize that, whatever the advantage to nazi Germany and the convenience to Russia of the nazi-soviet pact, at the time it was made, there could be no enduring good-will between forces so traditionally hostile and so diametrically opposed. He had every reason to expect that, before the end, the conflict would return to the place where he himself began it. He probably never

doubted that at some stage the issue would be fought out between the Russian proletariat and the war lords of Germany.
It is clear that Hitler miscalculated the probable duration of the Russian campaign and the military strength and skill, as well as the patriotism, of the Russian people. He mistook, also, the effect of years of nazi and fascist propaganda. He miay have expected a revolt behind the Russian lines; he met instead a united people prepared for any sacrifice. There is no doubt that the solidarity of opinion in Great Britain, in the dominions, in the United States, and in fact throughout all free lands, which followed the nazi attack upon Russia, was as much a surprise as it was a disappointment to Hitler and his accomplices.
It was on June 22-a Sunday morning- that Hitler launched his attack. Seldom has a situation arisen where there was more need for an immediate interpretation of its significance and implications. The remarkable fact, is that, without prior consultation, the same interpretation was given, in almost identical terms, in all parts of the British commonwealth and in the United States; and that, regardless of considerations of race or religion, the view expressed was much the same. It was immediately recognized that nazi Germany had again broken the peace, and again broken her own pledged word. Germany was plainly and clearly the aggressor. It was recognized that the nazi attack on soviet Russia was not a crusade against any Red menace but a new phase of the nazi attack on all the democracies.
This interpretation was the one set forth in the statement I issued, in tihe name of our government, on the afternoon of the day on which Russia was attacked. I stressed the fact that Germany, and not Russia, was the threat to freedom and peace; that every force fighting Hitler was fighting, whether consciously or unconsciously, for the preservation of Christian civilization; that every power which engaged our enemy advanced our cause. I pointed out that the German attack removed all shadow of doubt concerning Hitler's purpose ; that it constituted a fresh call to arms throughout the British commonwealth. I pointed out that Hitler's agreement with Russia had been broken with the same perfidious cynicism with which it had been sealed; that its making and its breaking had but one object-to eliminate danger in the east in order that there might be a concentration of force against Britain and the west. I emphasized that, therefore, it was not a time to debate differences of view or to relax effort, but rather a time for strengthened unity of opinion, and for still greater effort. That view

The War-International Situation
has been everywhere accepted throughout [DOT]our country. How true it has proved to be, that every day Russian resistance has held up the German advance has been a day [DOT]contributed to the cause of freedom, and the growing power of the British commonwealth and the United States!
I shall not attempt to outline the Russian [DOT]campaign or to predict its outcome. Eor over four months hostilities have continued on a long front stretching from the Arctic shore to the Crimea on the Black sea. There, notwithstanding the might of the German onslaught, a front still remains. The front line [DOT]of defence runs through the rivers and plains *of Russia. Fighting has been concentrated in three main sectors:	in the north around
Leningrad, which at the moment is in a virtual stage of siege; in the centre toward Moscow, in which area there has been continuous heavy fighting with enormous casualties in both men and materials; and in the south where strong German forces have already penetrated a long distance into the Ukraine. Here Germany has already captured many of the key centres beyond the Dnieper river where much of the Russian heavy industry is concentrated. After a stout defence of many weeks the Black sea port of Odessa has been evacuated. German hostilities have been extended into the Crimea. The most serious strategic threat to successful Russian resistance is in this southern sector. The way appears to be [DOT]opening for further penetration southwesterly into the Caucasus; one of the few areas in which Russia and Britain have direct communications by land and sea.
Russia, the largest European nation, is fighting every inch of the way. Never in human history has battle, reckoned in machines and men together, been waged on such a scale. Never have casualties been heavier. Only rarely, I believe, has the spontaneous sympathy of people throughout the world been so aroused.
It is not surprising that in so flagrant a case of aggression promises of support for Russia should have been forthcoming without delay. Britain, hard pressed though she is, took immediate steps to furnish military and economic aid. The government of the United States pledged all practical economic assistance. As an outcome of the Atlantic conference between President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, the governments of Britain and the United States undertook to send a joint mission to Russia to plan and organize the largest possible measure of assistance. In their recent conferences, the mission speedily reached agreement with the Russian government under which assistance in growing volume is already being provided.
The Canadian government kept in close touch with the activities of the Beaverbrook-Harriman mission both before and during its visit to Moscow. In consequence the members of the mission were in a position to count upon tangible support from Canada in the fulfilment of the undertakings given to the soviet government. It is not possible for me at this time to give details of the character or the extent of Canadian aid to Russia or of the precise arrangements being made with the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States with whom Canada is cooperating in sending the aid. In a general way the programme of aid includes war supplies, food, medical supplies and transport equipment.
The Russian campaign was preceded, as hon. members will recall, by the sweep of the nazi forces through the Balkan states and by the invasion and conquest of Greece. In a general way, on either side of the Mediterranean, at Gibraltar, along the north African coast, through Egypt, and to the Suez, the relative positions of the opposing forces have remained, throughout the summer months and since, much what they were at the time of the conquest of Greece. There has been continuous fighting on and over the waters of the Mediterranean, but all this, and much else, has been largely overshadowed by the immensity of the conflict in Russia.
A plane, flying from Gibraltar throughout the length of the Mediterranean, and pursuing its flight in an easterly direction to northern India, would fly in practically a straight line across Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. These countries are all immediately to the south of either Turkey or Russia. Geography is in itself sufficient to disclose how important, for strategic reasons, their position is.
There are, however, economic as well as geographical considerations which make the political disposition of each of these countries a matter of first importance. In Iraq and Iran lie the vast fields which supply much of the oil required by_ Britain for military as well as industrial purposes. For these countries to become hostile, or to pass into the hand of the enemy, might well prove a major disaster. When it is realized that the Ukraine and the Caucasus, because of their economic resources, are the possessions which above all Germany hopes to wrest from Russia, it will be seen how important to Russia and Britain alike is the retention of these areas in friendly hands.
As was to have been expected, there were evidence of enemy intrigue and penetration throughout Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, even before the Russian campaign commenced. Secret agents were at work in each of them, fostering discontent and making alliances cal-

The War-International Situation
culated to serve German interests. To preserve order, and to prevent her own position from being undermined, the British government has been obliged to take quick and decisive action in all these countries.
Trouble came first in Iraq. Open revolt was followed by the establishment of a rebel government friendly to the axis. In accordance with their treaty rights British forces intervened and suppressed the revolt. The legitimate government *was restored.
It will be recalled that, during the campaign in May which ended in the crushing of the axis-inspired revolt in Iraq, the nazis were permitted to use the air fields of the French mandates of Syria and Lebanon in order to facilitate the sending of aid to the Iraqi rebels. This axis penetration of Syria constituted a grave threat to the whole allied position in the eastern Mediterranean.
It was accordingly decided that a nazi occupation of this vital strategic area must be forestalled. On June 9 the British and Free French forces invaded the mandated territory. The same day, General Catroux, the leader of the Free French forces in the middle east, proclaimed the independence of Syria and Lebanon. Although the allied invasion was resisted by the French troops in Syria, the government at Vichy refrained from describing the hostilities as actual warfare. An open breach between Britain and France was thus averted. The allied occupation was completed a month later and an armistice arranged, which was ratified by the government at Vichy on July 15.
Since the allied occupation of Syria and Lebanon the most significant development in the middle east has been the intervention by Britain and soviet Russia in Iran. During August, both the British and Russian governments became increasingly apprehensive of the effects of a German "tourist" invasion of that country. Diplomatic action at the Iranian capital had no effect, consequently, on August 25, British and soviet forces entered Iran to protect the oil fields and safeguard communications. They met little resistance, and after four days of desultory fighting the Iranian forces were ordered by their government to cease all resistance. By September 10 a settlement had been reached by which the government of Iran agreed to turn over the axis nationals in that country to the allies, and to expel the enemy legations.
More recently, the government of Afghanistan has agreed, in response to allied diplomatic representations, to expel the axis nationals.
In all four countries Britain has made it perfectly clear that in no way has she in view the expansion of her own empire by the

acquisition of additional territories. Assurances have been given that, at the close of war, the fullest measure of restoration of the sovereignties of these countries will be made.
The strategic importance of safeguarding communications between the British and Russian forces in the middle east can hardly be overestimated. Prompt action is being taken to improve transport facilities on the Iranian railways. In this vital task Canada has undertaken to share.
Now a word as to the far east. As with the countries bordering on the *waters of the Mediterranean, so with the Asiatic countries bordering on the waters of the western Pacific, and with the far east generally, the situation has remained, until quite recently, pretty much what it was before the beginning of the Russian campaign. The effect of the latter, however, has been greatly to intensify the tension which previously existed, and which arose from the political and military activities of Japan and her claims to the establishment of a "new order" in east Asia. The Japanese leaders have not disguised the fact that Japan was giving consideration to the further use of force to expand her influence in this area. At the same time Japan has clearly been uneasy at the prospect of taking military initiative in the face of the firm attitude displayed by the United States, Britain and the Netherlands Indies.
At the moment when parliament adjourned, trade negotiations between Japan and the Netherlands Indies had broken down. A Japanese drive southwards seemed imminent. Before action came, the nazis attacked soviet Russia. There is no longer any doubt that the nazi attack was a complete surprise to the Japanese government and to the Japanese people. These soviet-Japanese pacts of nonaggression had been meant by the Japanese to be the counterpart in Asia of the nazi-soviet pact in Europe. Both agreements were being made use of as evidence on the part of Germany and Japan of their desire to limit the arena of hostilities. By Germany and Japan alike they were doubtless intended to secure the neutrality of Russia in a way which would free their own hands in any action which might be taken by either or both of them against the anti-axis powers. Germany's perfidious act seemed' to require, if the axis front was to be maintained, a similar volte-face on the part of Japan. This necessary change of front found its expression, not immediately, but by the middle of July, in a change of government in Japan. Mr. Matsuoka, who as foreign minister of Japan had negotiated the Japanese-soviet pact, was not included in the new government. His

The War-International Situation
exclusion was interpreted generally as a sign that the neutrality pact with Russia would, sooner or later, be repudiated. Since that moment serious consideration has been given the possibility of a northward attack on Siberia.
Until Germany's invasion of Russia, Japan's objective appeared to be the expansion, by force, of her "co-prosperity sphere" towards the south.
The first, and indeed the only actual expansion of Japanese military activity, since the adjournment, has been into French Indochina. Late in July the Japanese government extended the penetration of that colony, which began in the autumn of 1940. This penetration was facilitated by the attitude of Vichy, under German duress. The result is a virtual Japanese military occupation of Indo-China and Japanese possession of its important naval bases. There were signs that Japan intended to continue her military advance into Thailand, and that she was restrained only by the formidable economic measures taken by the United States, Britain, Canada, the other nations of the commonwealth, and the Netherlands Indies. The promptness and firmness of the steps taken by the democratic powers were clearly a rude shock to Japan.
On July 25, Mr. Eden announced in the British House of Commons that defensive measures had been taken in Malaya. Late that evening President Roosevelt issued an order "freezing" all Japanese assets in the United States. Parallel action was taken by the United Kingdom and by this country on July 26, and the commercial treaties between Japan and Britain and Japan and Canada were denounced.
On July 28 the Netherlands East Indies cut off Japan's oil supply from those islands. Two days later Mr. Eden warned Japan to "reflect", while there was still time, on the effect of her foreign policy. At the same time Britain excluded Japanese shipping from her coaling stations throughout the empire and from the inter-empire carrying trade. On August 1 President Roosevelt ordered an embargo on the shipment of aviation gasoline and oils to points outside the western hemisphere, the British empire, and unoccupied territories of nations resisting aggression. The result of these measures has been a virtual cessation of Japanese sea-borne commerce.
Despite frequent statements that Japan must defend her economy by proceeding with the establishment of her Asiatic "co-prosperity sphere", tension in the far east relaxed in August and September-. The anniversary of Japan's adherence to the axis, September 27, passed quietly. The celebrations in Tokyo were subdued in character.
Towards the middle of October tension once more began to increase rapidly in the far east. The growing tension was again reflected in a change of government in Japan, and the formation of a new cabinet headed by General Tojo. The new ministry represents the strongly anti-Russian tendencies among extreme militarists. General Tojo himself, while holding political office, remains on active service. He is minister of war, and has also under his direction the home ministry, which controls the extensive police services. It would appear that, for the present at least, political power in the cabinet has passed more firmly into the hands of extreme militarists than has been the case at any time in recent years.
It will be seen that the developments of the past four months have now brought matters to a point where a very definite conflict of interest has developed between Japan, as the axis partner of Germany and Italy on the one side, and the United States, Britain and Russia cn the other. The critical character of the far eastern situation, occasioned by the aggressive designs of Japan, was clearly indicated by Mr. Churchill in his broadcast to the world on August 24. After referring to the Japanese war on China, the British Prime Minister said:
Now they stretch their grasping hand into the southern seas of Chinav They snatch IndoChina from the wretched Vichy French. They menace by their movements Siam. They menace Singapore, the British link with Australasia, and they menace the Philippine islands under the protection of the United States. It is certain that this has got to stop.
Every effort will be made to secure a peaceful settlement.
The United States are labouring with infinite patience to arrive at a fair and amicable settlement which will give Japan the utmost reassurance for her legitimate interests.
We earnestly hope that these negotiations will succeed. But this I must say, that if these hopes should fail we shall of course range ourselves unhesitatingly at the side of the United States.
The Japanese occupation of Indo-China has created two menacing threats: the first, a possible encirclement of southern China, through the occupation of Thailand and an attempt to cut the Burma road; the second, an attack on the Netherlands East Indies from the bases in southern Indo-China. Whether aggression, if it takes the form of open conflict, will be directed toward the north against Russia, or in a southerly direction toward Thailand and the Dutch East Indies or in both directions simultaneously, cannot at the moment be foretold. It is important, however, that both eventualities should be kept in mind.
A word now as to China. No reference to the situation in the orient would be complete

The War

International Situation
"The navy," the president said, "has orders to shoot and the order stands." "Shooting has started," were the words with which the president began this address. He concluded by saying: "To-day, in the face of this newest and greatest challenge, we Americans have cleared our decks and taken our battle stations."
These words may be taken as describing, as effectively as words can, the present position of the United States.
I have, from the very beginning of the war, in parliament and out of parliament, stressed two things above all others; first, the world aspect of the danger; and second, the moral character of the issue.
I have consistently maintained that world domination was Germany's aim; that she hoped to achieve that aim through the might of her own power, and the ambitions of her axis partners. I have maintained with equal consistency that the issue fundamentally was a moral one, and that the conflict was one between a pagan conception of a world order, which ignores the individual and the value of all contractual relations, and a Christian conception of a world order which has regard alike fo" the sacredness of human personality. and of the pledged word in all the relationships of life. In other words, the conflict is one between a society which bases its relationship on the doctrine of Right, and a society in which human relationships are based on the doctrine of Might; it is a struggle which will decide whether mankind is to become increasingly free or revert to a condition of existence which is worse than slavery.
It has taken the past two years for most countries to come to see the all-encompassing aspect of the conflict. Most of the neutral nations of Europe did not begin to see it until their own freedom was gone. Other parts of the world have come to fear it only as encroaching dangers have drawn near to their own shores. What all have still to learn is that to-day no nation is sufficient unto itself, no continent and no hemisphere great enough, in its own strength, to maintain its own freedom. A recognition of interdependence and combined action based thereon is as necessary, indeed, it is infinitely more necessary to the democracies of the world if they are to maintain their freedom, than it is to the axis powers in the furtherance of their acts of aggression.
Of all developments in the growing substance of cooperation among nations, the most heartening has been the deepening interdependence of the British commonwealth and the United States. That interdependence found noble expression in the joint declaration of August last which was made public after

the historic meeting at sea between Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt. The conference in itself was evidence of the control of the seas which the combined fleets of Britain and the United States continue to possess. The joint declaration is an authoritative statement by the two great powers represented at the Atlantic conference of principles in international relations which they are agreed should govern the post-war world. At a meeting in London on September 24, formal adherence to these principles was given on behalf of the Allied powers and governments in exile.
The question it seems to me is no longer one mainly of assisting Russia, or assisting China, or assisting Britain, to save those countries from the might of the aggressor, necessary as this certainly is. Nor is it a question of helping to restore freedom to countries which have lost their freedom, essential as this also is. Nor is it a matter primarily of defending ourselves from attack, or of what shall be the precise scope of the post-war order. It has now reached the point of being a matter of saving freedom itself, and of saving the world from a condition of universal anarchy and chaos-
I have said that it has taken the past two years for most of the countries to come to see the all-encompassing aspect of the conflict. 1 doubt if any country has, as yet, come to see the undermining character of nazi doctrine and practice, or how completely subversive it is of Christian belief and humanitarian ideals, and how ruthlessly it seeks to destroy the precepts and standards of conduct based thereon. It is a menace alike to men's minds and souls, for it seeks to enslave both. It aims to destroy all true religion. It would substitute a materialistic interpretation of life for a spiritual one, brutality for charity, despair for faith, the worship of Hitler for the worship of God. All this, as well as the conquest of their lands, it seeks to impose by force upon the peoples whom it robs of their freedom. One has only to look at what the new order of nazi Germany is, and how it has been carried out in Germany itself, to see how it would be imposed by nazi tyrants upon their subject peoples. Even now, it demands one hundred innocent lives for the life of a single nazi.
Whether we speak in terms of nations or of individuals, we can no longer think of freedom as related solely to the bodies or the possessions of men. The only freedom worthy of the name is freedom of the mind and of the soul. We can no longer afford to think of our own freedom and the freedom of others as two things which may be considered

Business of the House-Procedure
apart from one another. We are all members one of another. The freedom of all is bound up in the lives of all. The issue is indeed a moral one, and it is a moral issue of the profoundest concern, not only to every nation but to every individual as well. The cause is indeed the highest which it has ever been given to man to defend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the Prime Minister's review of international affairs for the last three months or more. In order that the discussion may be regularized and in accordance with the suggestion which he made at an earlier stage of the proceedings, perhaps he will be good enough to move the adjournment of the house. This will give us an opportunity of analysing, so far as it may be necessary, the statement which he has just made. We can then have the conference to which he referred a short while ago.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the house.
He said: Perhaps I may suggest to my hon. friend and to the leaders of the other parties that if it is convenient to them they meet with me immediately. We could then plan the procedure for to-morrow and the subsequent days of the session.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 4.45 p.m.
Tuesday, November 4, 1941.