1941-02-24

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Under the prevailing system of rail grading of hogs, into how many grades do hog carcasses fall?
2.	What is the base or foundation grade
called?	.
3.	What are the names of higher grades, if any?
4.	What premium over the price for the base grade is paid for each higher grade?
5.	What are the names of lower grades, if any?
6.	What deduction from the price for the base grade is made for each lower grade?
7.	How, and by whom, is the difference in each grade determined?
8.	How, and by whom, are the differentials in the price paid for each grade determined?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	There are five main quality grades for hog carcasses. Including all sub-divisions, there are fifteen different classifications.
2.	"B 1" grade.
3.	"A" grade.
4.	One dollar per head premium is paid for "A" grade carcasses.
5 & 6. Deductions from basic grade: B 2 50 cents per head; B 3 $1.50 per head; C 1 $1 per head; C 2 $1 per head; C 3 $2 per head; D 1 $1.50 per head; D 2 $1.50 per head; D 3 $2.50 per head; light, $2.50 per head; heavy, $3 per head; extra heavy, $2 to $3 per cwt.; sows, approximately $5 per cwt.; E grade, at value.
Note: These deductions vary according to time and place. The above are believed to be in effect in Toronto at the present time.
7. The standards of quality for the various grades are established by the department, while the actual grading of carcasses is done by official graders appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
8. In 1922, the premium on the select bacon grade was established by agreement between the department and the joint swine committee, the membership of which includes representatives of various producers organizations. Subsequent modifications in the method of calculating the premium have been decided in the same way. On at least two occasions, general conferences of producers and live stock shippers were called to discuss grading and settlements for hogs and, in addition, provincial departments of agriculture were consulted.
The deductions on undesirable grades are established within the trade, between buyer and seller, according to the commercial value of the various qualities.


WAR REFUGEES
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has an agreement been reached between the dominion government and that of the province of Quebec on the subject of war refugees?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such agreement?
3.	Is such agreement the same for all the other provinces of Canada?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	No formal agreement has been reached with the government of the province of Quebec on the subject of war refugees. There is, however, a general understanding between the dominion and all the provinces regarding the movement of British children from overseas to Canada. The understanding reached was that the children coming to Canada under this movement would be taken care of for the duration of the war. The provinces agreed to accept the responsibility for their placement and general aftercare, using the existing facilities in each province without cost to the dominion, the dominion agreeing to reimburse them for any additional costs they might incur.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


GASPE AND MAGDALEN ISLANDS CHIEF CENSUS OFFICER
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Who has been named chief census officer for the county of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands?
2.	By whom was he recommended for the position?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Gaspe North, Louis Marie Keable; Gaspe South and Magdalen Islands, Terrance Pidgeon.
2.	The Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Questions


CANADIAN TRAVEL BUREAU
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What are the names, addresses and amounts paid to each of the various firms or persons who received portions of the $40,147.57 for booklets and connecting work, in connection with the Canadian travel bureau, for the fiscal year 1939-40 ?
2.	What festivals and celebrations, with addresses and amounts in each case, make up the $25,500 reported to have been so expended by the said bureau?
3.	In each case, what form of assistance was given, stating whether it was in cash, advertising, purchase of booklets and printed matter, premiums and other devices?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Cockfield, Brown and Company, Limited, Montreal, P.Q., $40,147.57.
Item
Cocoanut oil, n.o.p., edible	
Cotton seed oil, refined, edible for canning...
Cotton seed oil, n.o.p., edible	
Olive oil, n.o.p., edible	
Peanut oil, n.o.p., edible	
Soya bean oil, n.o.p., edible	
Castor oil	
Cocoanut oil, not edible, for mfr. of soap....
Cotton seed oil for refining	
Essential oil	
Eucalyptus oil	
Flaxseed or linseed oil	
Foots of cotton seed	
Olive oil for soap	
Palm oil for soap	
Peanut oil, crude, for refining	
Peanut oil for manufacture of soap	
Peppermint oil	
Rape seed oil	
Rosin oil	
Soya bean oil for manufacturing soap	
Vegetable oil, n.o.p., not edible


PERMITS FOR EXPORTS OF SAW-LOGS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Have any permits been issued for the export of saw-logs to non-empire countries from British Columbia, under the orders issued by the lumber controller on July 6 last, or under order in council No. 7156 of December 4, 1940?
2.	If permits have been issued, (a) what are the names of the companies in British Columbia to which permits were issued; (b) to what countries were such logs exported; (c) what quantities were exported?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.

2.	(a) Seventy-fifth anniversary of fathers of confederation conference, Charlottetown, P.E.I., $20,000. (b) Saguenay centennial celebration, Chicoutimi, P.Q., $5,000. (c) Annapolis Valley apple blossom festival, Kentville, N.S., $500.
3.	Dominion grants in cash.


IMPORTS OF VEGETABLE OIL
Mr. SENN:: What quantity of vegetable oil was imported into Canada from the United Kingdom for the calendar years 1938, 1939 and 1940?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Imports from	the United	Kingdom	of vegetable oils entered for consumption	in Canadaduring the 1940:-	calendar years 1938,	1939 andUnit	1938	1939	1940Gal.	10,091	12,197	Gal.	115,000	169,906	Gal.	930	19.291	Gal.	298	755	47Gal.	7,151	4.840	Gal.	56,139	30.194	Gal.	115.267	52,172	12,188Gal.	5,803	14	20,933Cwt.	140,419	36,734	....Lb.	50,581	42,439	64,205Lb.	6	Cwt.	2,900	1,999	330Cwt.	....	74Gal.	230	Cwt.	17,214	17.581	Cwt.	715,775	236.952	Gal.	876.856	164,331	Lb.	4,566	2,904	3,760Gal.	20,927	9,946	3,909Gal.	6,030	3,126	4,568Gal.	4,656	5,809	Gal.	114,852	120.619	2,825


WAR PICTURES PRESENTED BY LORD BEAVERBROOK TO CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Have the war pictures of the Canadian forces presented by Lord Beaverbrook to the Canadian government after the last war, been given a special place in the national art gallery?
2.	If not, where are they at present housed?


Mr. HOWE:: A special gallery on the ground floor of the national gallery was constructed in 1939 in which a selection of the more important pictures are now hanging. This selection of pictures is changed from time to time. Eight large canvases also hang on the walls of the senate chamber and the balance are stored

Questions
in a fire-proof storage room, specially prepared under the supervision of the national gallery officials, in the auditorium building.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-HEADQUARTERS IN QUEBEC CITY
Mr. ROY:: 1.	At what address and in what building in the city of Quebec is the local division quartered ?
2.	Does the property belong to the government? If so, when was it purchased, from whom and at what price?
3.	If not, to whom does it belong, and if rented, (a) from whom, (b) since when, (c) for how much per month or year, (d) is all the property occupied, or only part, (e) what part is occupied?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	At 596 St. Jean Street, Quebec; in the building owned by Mr. Joseph N. Roy.
2.	No.
3.	(a) The building is rented from Mr. Joseph N. Roy, 271 St. Peter Street, Quebec.
(b)	From the 1st April, 1940.	(c) $200 per
month, (d) Yes, all occupied, (e) Answered by (d) above.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL TERMINAL
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What amount of money was spent on the terminal at Montreal, of the Canadian National Railways, during the year 1940?
2.	How much of this was for material and how much for labour?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Information will be included in the statement of expenditures during previous calendar year required under the Montreal Terminal Act, 1929, to be filed shortly with the Minister of Transport for tabling in parliament.
2.	Information requested will not be available since most of the work in question was performed under contract.


WAR MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES-CONTRACTS FOR CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT, QUEBEC CITY AND DISTRICT
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government awarded contracts for clothing and equipment for the troops in the city and district of Quebec, since September 3, 1939, to date?
2. If so, (a) who are the recipients of these contracts, (b) what is the amount of each,
(c)	what is the total amount?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Contracts have been awarded to several hundred firms for clothing and equipment for
the armed forces. Distribution of this is made from a central depot. It is impossible to answer the question in its present form.


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government awarded contracts for clothing and equipment for the troops in the city and district of Quebec to Maurice Pollack, or Maurice Pollack, Limited, since September 3, 1939, to date?
2.	If so, (a) how many of such contracts, (b) on what date and for what amount in each case, (c) what is the total amount of such contracts?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government awarded contracts for clothing and equipment for the troops in the city and district of Quebec to Pollack and Dorfman, since September 3, 1939, to date?
2.	If so, (a) how many of such contracts, (b) on what date and for what amount in each case, and (c) what is the total amount of such contracts?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Contracts have been awarded to several hundred firms for clothing and equipment for the armed forces. Distribution of this is made from a central depot, and it is therefore impossible to answer this question in its present form.
2.	Contracts have been awarded to the firm of Pollack and Dorfman, 92-98 des Prairies Street, Quebec, Quebec.
(a)	9.
(b)	December 6, 1939, S12,625; December 6,
1939, $8,875; May 10, 1940, $65,938; July 17,
1940, $26,900; July 17, 1940, $18,300; July 19, 1940, $2,288; August 9, 1940, $180,800; October 18, 1940, $216,000; February 12, 1941, $84,000.
(c)	$615,726.
The amounts shown do not include the cost of the cloth supplied the contractor by the Department.


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government awarded contracts for clothing and equipment for the troops in the city and district of Quebec to Samuel Dorfman, since September 3, 1939, to date?
2.	If so, (a) how many, (b) on what date and for what amount in each case, and (c) for what total sum?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.


BACON BOARD
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1. What remuneration does the chairman of the bacon board receive for his services?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2. What amounts have been paid since the setting up of this board to the chairman and the other members of the board in (a) salary, and (b) expenses, respectively?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	S12 per diem allowance for all meetings of the bacon board ex place of residence.
2.	(a)
Bacon Board
Expenditure to January 31, 1941
*Perdiem Travelling Total Allowance Expenses
J. G. Taggart..	$1,434	$904.87	$2,33887L. C. McOuat ..	1.332	29.20	1,361.20S. E. Todd ..	1,212	522.78	1.734.78A. Morin .. ..	324	171.75	495.75*$12 per diem residence.	for all	meetings ex	place of2. (b)	Advisory Board	ExpensesJ. H. Tapley ..	$115.30W. J. Reid .. .	257.57J. Harrold .. ..	505.25F. H. Downing	361.02J. E. Bisson .	96.45K. N. Morrison .	241.05G. Wilson . ..	158.50



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the average price of milk paid to the producer in Montreal during the months ?L5ay',June' July>
Au8ust and September, 1940, and also during the months of October, November and December of the same year?
2.	What was the average price of butter paid to the producer in each of the above mentioned months?
3.	What was the quantity of butter held in
cold storage in Canada during the months of September, October, November and December, 1940?	'
4.	Were any measures taken by the government to ascertain who was responsible for this combine for the restraint of trade in butter?
5.	If so, what were they?
6.	Were any prosecutions instituted against the authors and those who gained by this combine in restraint of trade?
7.	If so, when, and what were the results of these prosecutions?



JOHN INGLIS COMPANY-BREN GUN CONTRACT

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What was the amount due to the John Inglis Company under the original Bren gun contract up to October 31, 1940, (a) on Canadian account; (b) on British government account?
2.	What was the amount due the John Inglis Company under the new Bren gun contracts up

to March 31, 1940, (a) on Canadian account; (b) on British government account?
3. What adjustment payments arising out of the cancellation of the original Bren gun contract have been paid or are to be paid to the John Inglis Company, (a) what were the bases of these payments; (b) what amounts have been paid to date?



WAR REFUGEES

Mr. ROY:: 1.	How many refugees have been admitted into Canada since the outbreak of war?
2.	How many race horses, dogs or other animals have been brought into Canada by these refugees?
3.	How many of such refugees have been located in the province of Quebec and how many in each of the other provinces?
4.	What understanding has been reached between Canada and Great Britain with regard to war refugees, children and others?
5.	What amount has the Canadian treasury been called upon to spend for the maintenance of these refugees?


Mr. CRERAR:: This should stand as an order for return. I would point out to the hon. member that there is no classification of "refugees" in the records of the immigration department. I do not think the first part of the question can be answered in the terms in which the hon. gentleman has asked it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order for return.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD EMPLOYEES

Mr. ISNOR:: What were the rates of pay, regular and overtime, and hours worked for the following classes of employees of the national harbours board at Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax as at December 31, 1940: police constables, police sergeants, police chiefs, watchmen, firemen, labourers, labour foremen, sweepers, chauffeurs, truck drivers, carpenters, carpenter helpers, foremen carpenters, plumbers, plumber helpers, electricians, electrician helpers, pipe fitters, pipe fitters' helpers, rigger helper, rigger, foreman rigger, blacksmith, blacksmith helper, welder, welder helper, painter?



INTERNMENT CAMPS

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Were any internment camps established in Canada during the last war? If so, how many and where were they located?
2.	How many persons were interned in these camps and how many of them were Canadians?
3.	How many internment camps have been established during the present war and how many Canadians are in them?



PURCHASE OF LAND IN SCARBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, YORK COUNTY, ONT.

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1. Has the government bought land in Scar-boro township, York county, during the last two years?

Motions for Papers
2.	If so, how many sites and how many acres
in each site?	,
3.	(a) Have contracts been let for buildings to be erected on sites mentioned in questions one and two; (b) if so, who are the contractors?
4.	Were tenders called for the buildings to be erected on above sites?



EMPLOYMENT OP LAWYERS BY 'DOMINION GOVERNMENT

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	What are the names of lawyers employed by the dominion government or any department thereof, or any dominion board or commission, such as the board of grain commissioners, the transport board, the Canadian wheat board, the Canada farm loan board, the soldier settlement board, etc., in the province of Manitoba in connection with legal work in the years 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940?
2.	What fees were paid to each one in those years, specifying the department, board or other body for which such legal work was performed?



PURCHASE OP LAND IN PICKERING TOWNSHIP, ONTARIO COUNTY, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
,Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):
1.	Has the government bought land in Pickering township, Ontario county, during the last two years?
2.	If so, how many acres?
3.	For what purpose is the land to be used?

[Stage Direction]
PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE - CORRESPONDENCE WITH RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF ELPROS NO. 307 Mr. NICHOLSON:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the prairie farm assistance branch and the rural municipality of Elfros No. 307 during the year 1940 and to date in 1941.
Mr. GARDINER:: I know of no reason why all this information should not be brought down, unless any of it has to do with individual yields-that is where affidavits have been taken-that of course cannot be brought down.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Will the minister explain why not? _


James Garfield Gardiner: In all these cases
where an individual has made an affidavit the departmental officials have taken the position continuously since the act was brought in that it would not be in the public interest to bring that information before the house. The individual makes a declaration, which may be four or five acres out one way or the other; it is difficult for individuals to keep track of their acreage sown all the way through the year, and sometimes there is a dispute over the matter which if aired locally might create some misunderstanding.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Even then I do not see that that is a reason for not 14873-60
bringing it down here on an order of the house. I do not agree with the minister's reason.


Georges Parent: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the limitation stated by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD:: For a copy of all correspondence and special reports exchanged between J. A. Strong, or the office of the Canadian trade commission in Buenos Aires and the Department of Trade and Commerce of Canada regarding shipments of potatoes from Canada to the Argentine and other South American countries since September 1, 1940, to date.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY-CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. ROY:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the dominion government and the government of the province of Quebec, from January, 1930, to date, regarding the proposed canalization of the St. Lawrence.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: As hon. members are aware, negotiations have been proceeding between the government of the United States and our government with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway. To bring down the documents requested would require in the first place the consent of the United States government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it relates to the St. Lawrence waterway. The fact that the negotiations are between this government and the government of the province of Quebec does not exclude the fact that they relate to matters that are the subject of negotiation at the present time between the United States government and this government, and in the circumstances they should be regarded as confidential. For that reason the correspondence cannot be brought down at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I must register a protest against that. What is asked for is the correspondence between the government of the province of Quebec and the dominion government regarding a project in which the province of Quebec is vitally interested, and to which the United States of America is not a party. I suggest that such correspondence is not and ought not to be treated as confidential, but should be placed on the table of this house for the information

Motions for Papers

of the Canadian people and especially the people of the province of Quebec who want to know what their government is doing about this.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I should be satisfied if the government would produce all the correspondence exchanged between the government of the province of Quebec and the government here at Ottawa, excluding all correspondence with the government of the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand from my hon. friend that he will be quite satisfied to have such correspondence as has been exchanged between Ottawa and Quebec and which is not confidential because of what it would disclose with respect to present negotiations with the United States. If that is what my hon. friend is asking for-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then as leader of the government of Canada I am being asked to disclose information which relates to negotiations which are pending and which of necessity are confidential as 'between the two governments. In the first instance I should have to obtain the consent of the government of the United States to the tabling of any correspondence relating to negotiations now taking place. I do not think I would be justified in placing upon the government of the United States the onus of not having this correspondence produced when I know that international procedure would require that it should not be produced. On that basis, I am prepared personally to take the responsibility for not tabling any such correspondence at the present time.
Motion dropped.



LITTLE ANSE, N.S., BREAKWATER

Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: For a copy of all payrolls for 1940, in connection with the work performed on the breakwater at Little Anse, Richmond county, Nova Scotia?



WAR CONTRACTS-COST-PLUS AND MANAGEMENT-FEE

Richard Burpee Hanson: For a copy of all cost plus contracts and of all management fee contracts, the ultimate expenditure upon which is estimated to exceed $1,000,000, awarded by the defence purchasing board, the war supply board, the Department of Munitions and Supply, the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Defence for Air, or the Department of National Defence for Naval Affairs, since September 1, 1939, together with any supplementary contracts or revisions made to date.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-A. NEWMAN

Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the dominion Department of Agriculture and the Alberta government during the years 1935 to 1940, inclusive, in connection with the work of Mr. A. Newman, field man with the live stock and poultry branch, dominion production service. Also a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the dominion Department of Agriculture and Mr. A. Newman, during the period 1939 to 1940, inclusive, in connection with the resignation of Mr. Newman.



WAR PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved:
That a select committee be set up to which shall be referred for consideration the general provisions of the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and to which shall be referred specifically such questions connected with pensions and the problems of ex-service men as the house may deem advisable; and
That rule 65 be suspended in relation thereto; and
That the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses for evidence; to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and members of the house; and to report from time to time; and
That the committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Abbott, Black, Blanchette, Brooks, Bruce, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Casselman (EdmontonEast), Cleaver, Cockeram, Cruiekshank, Emmerson, Eudes, Ferron, Gillis, Gray, Green, Harris (Gray-Bruce), Isnor, Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane), Macdonald (Brantford), MacKenzie (Neepawa), Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Macmillan, Marshall, MeCuaig, McLean (Simeoe East), Mutch, Quelch, Reid, Ross (Middlesex East), Ross (Souris), Sanderson, Thorson, Tucker, Turgeon, Vien, Winkler, Wright.
Hon. R. B, HANSON (Leader of the Opposition): In submitting the names of our soldier members by some inadvertence the name of the hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough (Mr. White) was not included. He is a returned man and while he was incapacitated I do not know whether he is a pensioner. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to add his name to the list of members. This addition would not alter the balance in any way.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I shall be glad to do that.


Georges Parent: The name of the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough will be added to the list of members of the committee.
Motion as amended agreed to.

Sir Frederick Banting



SIR FREDERICK BANTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to inquire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), or perhaps more properly of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), if the government has received any information other than what is contained in the morning papers with respect to the reported loss of a plane in which Sir Frederick Banting was said to be a passenger.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: There is a message on my desk now and I was inquiring into its authenticity just before I had to leave rather hurriedly for the chamber. I shall make further inquiry and let my hon. friend have any definite information I am able to obtain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just before I came in I had word from the Department of Transport that the plane has been found. It is on a point of a bay on the direct route between Canada and Botwood. There is a message written on the snow which indicates that someone on board the plane is alive at least. A plane has been sent out equipped with skis which will be capable of landing there and it is probable that there will be definite word before the afternoon is over.



REPORT OF AEROPLANE ACCIDENT WITH LOSS OF ALL ON BOARD EXCEPT PILOT

James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give
to the house the latest information that has come to hand with reference to the aircraft disaster in Newfoundland. I am afraid it brings extremely bad news to Canada. The message is from Wing Commander Gordon, Newfoundland airport, to headquarters, Eastern Air Command, Halifax:
The pilot Mackey is alive; the others are dead. Two trappers are at the aircraft. Aircraft dropped more emergency rations to party. Moth skiplane en route from St. Johns, Newfoundland, to Newfoundland air port.
I believe that is a Newfoundland government plane. The memorandum I have goes on to say:
The Moth skiplane will proceed to the scene of the crash as soon as possible. Two ski-planes from Ottawa Air Station are also proceeding to Newfoundland to bring out the pilot and deceased.
For the Department of National Defence I wish to express the deepest regret at the
14873-60}
passing of Sir Frederick Banting, who was himself an officer of the department. He has been rendering invaluable professional services to Canada, and he has also been serving the country by devoting his outstanding abilities to research-not merely abstract research but research applied practically to the problems which face us in this time of war. In fact, the trip he was making had been necessitated thereby. I know that all the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the defence forces will join with me in this expression of deep regret, and in the most heartfelt sympathy to Lady Banting and1 family and, as well, to the relatives and friends of the others who perished-Navigator William Bird of Kidderminster, Worcester, England, and William Snailham, of Bedford, Nova Scotia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, with your
permission and that of the house, I should like to supplement the words of the Minister of National Defence. On behalf both of the government and of hon. members of this house, may I say what a shock it has been to us all to receive the sad intelligence which has just been imparted to the house. May I also express our deep sympathy with the relatives of those brave and gallant men whose lives have been so unhappily sacrificed in the disaster of which we have just heard.
Perhaps I may be allowed to add a special word touching the loss which our country has sustained in the passing of Sir Frederick Banting. It was not so long ago that this parliament, in recognition of the distinguished services which he had rendered to science, voted to him an annuity that he might the better devote his life to scientific research.
In his passing our country has lost one of her most distinguished sons, who was proceeding to Britain on a mission of high national and scientific importance.
Doctor Banting was honoured by the universities and learned societies of the world. He was the winner of the Nobel prize, which he generously shared with his associates. His medical discoveries have brought honour to his native land. The name of Sir Frederick Banting will live in the history of medicine as a great benefactor of mankind, who by his discovery of insulin brought new hope to the suffering and the promise of life to many who were doomed to early death before his researches were crowned with success. Great will be the grief that his own life, so full of promise for human welfare, should have come to such an untimely end.
Sir Frederick offered his services to his country as soon as war broke out. He organized a particularly important branch of medical
Sir Frederick Banting

research. With a band of devoted fellow workers he had dedicated himself to the solution of the new medical problems associated with aviation, and the speed, height and low temperatures involved in the operation of modem aircraft. Already his work had proved of inestimable value. The world of medicine will deplore his loss as his fellow citizens join with men of many nations to mourn his passing and record their gratitude for the rich achievement of his devoted labours.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate myself with the eloquent words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and only regret my inability to express my sentiments and feelings with the same facility and felicity. I had not the pleasure of Doctor Banting's acquaintance, but I am glad to have been a member of this house .when a few years ago parliament voted him the annuity to which the Prime Minister has referred, in order that he might be quite free of monetary considerations in the researches he was conducting. I am delighted to-think that at a later date his sovereign recognized his worth and honoured him as a Canadian. I am sure we all join in expressing to Lady Banting and his other loved ones our most sincere sympathy.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, as a colleague of Sir Frederick Banting in the medical faculty of the university of Toronto, and as a member of the board of governors of the university, I am deeply shocked at the news which has been just imparted to us. I wish to add my voice to the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in expressing the deep regret and profound sorrow that all Canadians will experience when they learn of the tragic death of Sir Frederick Banting who has brought such distinction to Canada. He and Louis Pasteur will be remembered forever for f ieir great contributions to medical science. Generations yet unborn will feel gratitude chat such a man as Sir Frederick Banting Lved to enrich the world with one of the greatest discoveries ever made in medical science, for the relief of human suffering.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: On behalf of my group, Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with what has been said already. I think the sentiments of all of us have been most appropriately expressed.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: On behalf of this group, Mr. Speaker, I desire ;.o associate myself with the sentiments which 
have been expressed in this hour of very great sorrow for us all.



CANADIAN YOUTH CONGRESS


[Stage Direction]
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I am informed by the secretary of the national young people's union of the United Church of Canada that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police raided the home of Mr. Jack Brierley, Montreal secretary of the Canadian youth congress, on February 13, last. Since the Minister of Justice has already declared this organization to be perfectly legal, what was the reason for such a raid, and upon whose authority was the raid made?
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: If my bon. friend will
kindly wait until to-morrow I shall have the necessary investigation made and give an answer.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether it is proposed to bring down this session any amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and if so when we may expect them.
I should also like to inquire whether in the administration of the act in Saskatchewan this year action was taken under any special rules or regulations made after the act was passed, and if so would the minister be good enough to table them at the next sitting of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Answering the first question, in the list of proposed legislation for this session it is suggested that there may be amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, but we are not certain that they will be brought down this session. As to the second question, I think there were a number of amendments made to the regulations, and if so I shall be glad to table them.



WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement to the house on the progress of the war savings certificates campaign.

The War*-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
During February we have, as hon. members know, been conducting a special campaign to increase the sale of these certificates to at least $10,000,000 a month and to ensure that at least 2,000,000 Canadians will pledge themselves to become regular war savers for the duration of the war. I now feel it safe for me to say that we expect not only to reach but to exceed that objective, possibly by a substantial amount.
During the first twenty-two days of the month applications amounting to $7,115,556 have been received. This total reflects only to a slight extent applications that result from payroll savings and bank pledges. As the house will realize, it is on these two phases of the programme that we have been placing primary reliance, and, while we shall not have the complete figures until after the end of the month, the reports already received from the thousands of voluntary committees and workers throughout the country indicate that the response to our campaign will be far greater than we expected.
The enthusiastic response of employers and employees to the payroll savings plan as a means of regular war saving is indicated by the fact that honour roll certificates have already been issued to 915 companies and other firms. These honour roll certificates are issued to any firm whose employees are participating in the plan to the extent of at least seventy-five per cent, and our national war savings committee advise me that they have yet to hear from the first firm to report that it has not yet been able to or is not likely to be able to secure at least a seventy-five per cent participation. Hon. members will already have noted from the press that quite a substantial number of firms are actually reporting one hundred per cent participation.
Before taking my seat I wish to pay tribute to the many thousands of volunteer workers throughout the country who by weeks of hard work and effective organization have made these results possible, and to express to them my confidence that in this concluding week of the present intensive phase of the war savings campaign they will be able to report the rolling-in of applications in a volume that will more than justify all the thought and energy which they have put into the campaign.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would it be possible to amplify that wonderful result achieved by voluntary workers by having the census made by voluntary workers, thereby saving the country a lot of money?


Mr. MacNICOL:: No applause from the other side.



THE WAR-PRESENT POSITION  CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON MOTION OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley for committee of supply.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) moved that the house go into committee of supply, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) took occasion to deliver to the house a very carefully prepared speech dealing with a variety of important matters, including a review of the war situation since December 2 last, when he gave his last statement on the European situation.
The speech, in part at least, was designed to afford a suitable background, as he put it, against which to consider external affairs and also the 1941-42 war appropriation bill, the resolution preceding which was introduced by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday last and debated on subsequent days of last week.
In the course of his remarks the Prime Minister stated that "it is not possible to divorce war enactments and the foreign policy on which they are necessarily based". That, of course, is a truism and would be wholly applicable if our war enactments were in fact and in truth based on a sound, well-thought-out master war plan. But, in view of the fact, as I stated on Wednesday last, that Canada has never had and has not now a sound and well-thought-out master plan for our war effort, the truth of this statement is therefore in this instance at least open to question.
However that may be, I do not for the moment desire to pursue that line of thought, and having listened attentively to and having since read with some care the Prime Minister's statement I am in agreement with much that he said in the early part of his remarks with respect to the operations in the various theatres of war-in Europe, Africa, and the far east-and may I pause here to say, with regard to the gravity of the situation upon which the Prime Minister laid great stress during the course of his remarks.
The African campaign has thrilled us all. We have been delighted to read and hear of the spectacular victories which have been achieved by the British and Australian forces over the enemy in Egypt and adjacent territory. We have been especially proud of the part played by the armed forces from the sister dominion of Australia. The infantry from that dominion and their gallant airmen
042	COMMONS
The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
nave been the very spearhead of General Wavell's command. They have covered themselves with glory; their achievements have been, very properly, the subject of world acclaim, and nowhere, I hope, has that acclaim been given more wholeheartedly than here in Canada.
Loyal Canadians will not envy Australia the palms of glory that have come to her armed forces as a result of their courage and daring. To me personally there is an element of regret that no Canadians participated in this campaign. I have no criticism to offer at this moment that our gallant men of the first and second divisions were not represented in these achievements. There may be good and sufficient reasons why this country was not represented. The Prime Minister did not enlighten us. Perhaps at a later stage he will be good enough to tell us whether an expeditionary force of Canadians to Egypt was considered, and if not, just what the position is. I have no doubt that the personnel of the Canadian divisions in England would have welcomed an opportunity to participate.
With respect to the change which has taken place in recent months in the attitude of the United States towards the war to which the Prime Minister alluded, there is no doubt that the change has been marked and has gained great momentum, due, I think, almost wholly to the magnificient leadership given by the president of that great country.
Just a little over a year ago, and for some time after the declaration of war, I spent a -considerable period of time in the United States. I had some opportunity of analysing public opinion as expressed in the press and elsewhere, and I confess to this house that at [DOT]that time I was startled by the apparent strength of the so-called isolationist movement. There was the cry that the United States would never again participate in a European struggle, that the situation in Europe was no concern of theirs-in fact, there was a demand, which at that time I rather overestimated, that there should be no aid to Britain and the democracies except on a purely commercial basis. I read that outrageous book, England Expects Every American To Do His Duty, with a great deal of disgust.
There was, in some influential circles, a feeling of frustration, and in others almost a certainty that Britain and her ally could not whip Hitler. This feeling was greatly intensified by the fall of France and the happenings at Dunkirk. At that time there was a great preponderance of public opinion in the United States that Britain could not carry the whole load and that she was bound to succumb.

This feeling, however, produced in the minds of the great mass of thoughtful, liberty-loving people of that nation a tremendous reaction and revival of sympathy for the principles of liberty and democracy and for the only remaining active defender of liberty and democracy. The principles established by congress before the war opened, based on detachment and non-participation except on a purely commercial basis, were vigorously attacked by those thoughtful elements who realized to the full just what [DOT]the fall of Britain would mean to them and to their country. Under the skilful and intelligent leadership of their president, the great mass of the people of the United States came to a realization that for the preservation of themselves and of all those things for which the republic was founded, they must make this their war if not their fight.
The tragedy and the unanswerable logic of the trend of events in May and June last brought the situation home to our great neighbour as, perhaps, nothing else could. They realize now that their own security, the preservation of what is termed "the American way of life," the democratic way of life, and its survival, are of supreme importance to them; and they know, too, that all these things may be preserved only by keeping the battle over there and by victory for Britain in the immediate theatre of war.
This is the theory which I have continuously urged upon the Canadian people as being the matter of most paramount importance in our war effort-that the defence of Britain and her ultimate victory and triumph in the theatre of war is our first and primary objective; that the defence of Canada is of secondary importance, but only secondary; and therefore we on this side of the chamber have advocated without cessation the doctrine that our first and foremost duty is to support and sustain Britain overseas, and to see to our own defence next. This doctrine in a degree has been accepted by the government of the United States. They subscribe to the principle and doctrine that the British navy and the Royal Air Force are their first line of defence, as they are ours, and to that end. effective aid to Britain, compatible with their duty to provide for their own defence, is of vital importance. Their resources, material and other, are vastly greater than those of any other nation in the world. Their stake in the outcome is as large and as vital as that of Britain; and a realization of that, and of the measures which they have adopted and are adopting, gives us the greatest hope for the future.
I have never allowed myself to think that Britain would not win this war. I do not

The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
say that Britain could not win through without aid from the United States, backed, as she is, by all the resources and the man power of the sister dominions, if placed at her disposal; but the burden is so great, the theatre of war has been so greatly extended, that to me it is extremely doubtful whether, left without outside aid, the issue can be decided in favour of the democracies. It might well end in a stalemate. The material assistance which the United States has already given, can give, and I ana sure will give with increasing momentum in the ensuing months, will without question be of decisive importance, and may well turn the scale.
We should, I think, frankly recognize this fact and not in any degree attempt to deny it. We all listened with emotion to the last broadcast of the British Prime Minister, in which he appealed to the people of the United States to give Britain the weapons, the materials and supplies, the instruments-and the job would be done. How heartened we all were at the words of Lord Beaverbrook yesterday in which, among other things, he said that nazi war planes had lost their terror; that, when Churchill came to power, the people of Britain feared them; now they defy them. I was especially impressed with that part of his plea in which he urged the people of this dominion to send food and weapons, and exhorted them "to seek the world over for ships." We are sending food, for a price. Have we ever given any food to Britain? How many weapons have we actually sent to Britain other than those for our own forces? We are not told. When a cry like Beaver-brook's comes to our ears, are we not uncomfortable at the thought that we do not know what has been done, that our government soothes us with promises and generalities, but is never factual? Is it possible that we have done nothing? I do not think so. I should like to know.
Then the cry for ships and shipping! We are to build ships for the account of the British government, but how many keels have actually been laid? Let the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) tell us what progress has been made.
While I am paying a tribute to the might and importance of the United States in this gigantic struggle as it will affect the issue, may I be permitted to draw the attention of the house and of the country to the fact that the Prime Minister, in the course of his address did not tell the house or the country anything at all with respect to the war relations of Canada and the United States in connection with the recommendations, and operations resulting therefrom, arising out of
the appointment of the joint defence board. On no occasion has he done so. To me this omission is amazing. It is well known that the board has had many meetings. It has travelled over this continent from east to west, and back again. Undoubtedly it has made recommendations. What is the nature of these recommendations? Are the Canadian people to be told? Apparently not. If we are not to be told what these recommendations are, then at least we should be told why we are not to be told. I invite the Prime Minister to tell us all that can be safely stated. If there are deep military secrets which may not be divulged because of their nature and because public knowledge would endanger the safety of the state, and give information to the enemy or possible enemies, then I would not press for details. But, generally speaking, we should know. It is not good enough merely to say we are working in close harmony with the defence department of the United States.
It will be recalled that during the course of the debate on the address on December 3 last I asked the Prime Minister across the floor of this chamber if there were any commitments; and, intervening in my address, he declared vehemently and emphatically that there were none. I confess I am puzzled about the situation. There are no commitments, we are told. Are there understandings? There is no evidence of joint undertakings except, as I understand it, that the great airport at Gander, Newfoundland, which Canada is building and at great cost; the work on which is said to have bogged down in an amazing degree, and which will cost much more than double the estimate, is to be used-and quite properly-by the United States air force. Is there any deep military reason why we should not know something of this?
Frankly I cannot understand the statement that there are no commitments. I invite the Prime Minister to tell us all that is permissible and within reasonable limitations; and I suggest that that is a reasonable request.
The Prime Minister devoted some time to repeating the substance of a recent radio address in connection with the war savings drive, to a review of the development of the army, navy and air force, and the dispatch overseas in 1941 of more units.
May I pause here to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the statement which he made this afternoon before the orders of the day were called? The effort resulting from the war savings certificates drive shows what a united nation can do, and what Canada is doing to-day. Notwithstanding the fact that things are as they are in my province, I know that the people got behind this war
944	COMMONS
The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
savings drive, although many of them are veiy much opposed to doing so because of the manner in which, they think, the war is being carried on. Notwithstanding that, the people of Canada are patriotic and will sink their differences and get behind this government in a drive of that kind.
I do not think that at this time I should go into the question of the developments of the army and navy and air force. There will be a further opportunity to do so, and the subject will bear further scrutiny and examination. We shall hear a good deal this session about Canada's production of war equipment and supplies. We are always being told what is going to be done, but we have never had a full statement of what has been accomplished; and if the government persists in its present policy, we shall never know what has been the measure of that production. The reason is always given that the British government does not want production in terms of units known. We are told in terms of dollars and cents, but nothing more. That does not seem to be the policy in Australia, where the people are kept informed as to production by their government. The reasons which impel the British government to indicate that figures of production should not be given would appear to be applicable to Australia. And I venture to say that, compared with our wealth, national resources, man power and population, Australia has done much more relatively than we have.
The reason is quite clear. The sister dominion was never limited to a policy of moderate participation; they have been committed to a policy of all-out effort ever since they went into the war. It seems to me that it would be quite appropriate for us here in Canada to pay a formal tribute to Australia for its recent and notable military achievements. As the Prime Minister has not done so, I deem it a great privilege, as leader of the opposition, to have this opportunity.
Australia has done a great job in the middle east. As I stated a few moments ago, it has been the spear-head of General Wavell's attack. It has demonstrated the new science of assault warfare. It has helped to prove the potency of the offensive spirit of the empire. It has set an example to the world in gallantry and effectiveness.
Australia is also now at Singapore and in the Malay peninsula. We can confidently expect that the Australians will give the same high account of themselves in these new theatres of war as they have in Egypt and in Libya, should the need arise.
Australia, from the outset of the war,- indeed, long before the war started-has oper-

ated on the principle of maximum contribution. It has set the highest standard of service and sacrifice, and has lived up to it. The inspiring consequences of this policy are well known, in terms of the mobilization of man power for home and overseas service, air personnel, aeroplanes built in Australia, naval strength, and so forth.
Australia has raised an army corps comprising four divisions for overseas, together with corps troops and adequate reserves. At least two, and possibly three of these divisions are already on active service in the middle east. An additional fully equipped force arrived recently at Singapore. By the 1st of November, 1940, the Royal Australian Air Force had recruited more than 37,000 men, of whom 12,218 had been chosen as aircrew. Squadrons have been sent abroad to England, the middle east and Singapore.
At the end of 1940, the personnel of the Royal Australian Navy exceeded 15,000, including reserves. I have not been able to secure exact figures for the number of men mobilized and trained for home defence. However, the objective repeatedly stated by the Prime Minister is 250,000, and energetic steps are being taken to achieve that objective within the shortest possible time.
In aircraft, Australia is producing an intermediate training machine, the Wirraway, which is similar to the Harvard. These Wirraway machines are now being turned out at the rate of rather more than seven a week; and the first 200 have already been delivered. The Wirraway is powered with a Pratt and Whitney single-row Wasp engine, which is also manufactured in Australia.
The Australian Tiger Moth, an elementary trainer manufactured by the de Havilland Aircraft Company, was, before the end of 1940, being produced at the rate of two Tiger Moths a day. The two-hundredth machine out of a contract of 500 was delivered at Christmas. The Gypsy Major engine with which these planes are equipped is planned, assembled and tested by General Motors-Holden's in Melbourne. The actual parts are made by thirty-six manufacturing firms in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne. These engines are now being turned out at the rate of two a day.
The production of Beaufort bombers is under way, and the first complete Beaufort is expected to undergo tests in April next. By the middle of 1941, the Beaufort project will be the largest single industry in Australia and it is estimated that it will ultimately employ about 10,000. The Beaufort project was originally contingent on the supply of Taurus engines from England. As these were

The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
not forthcoming, Beaufort airframes were modified to -take a twin-row Wasp engine, manufacture of which was begun in Australia.
According to a press report in the Sydney Morning Herald, January 11, 1941, the Australian Minister of Munitions, Senator McBride, stated that Australia's production for war now included:
Guns: 3-7 and 3" 20 hundredweight antiaircraft guns in production now.
Gun ammunition: a complete range of components in full production, including shell bodies, fuses, primers, cartridge-cases, cartridge-bags, mortar bombs, hand-grenades, and aircraft bombs, ranging from 8J-pound practice type to 250-pound service pattern.
Explosives:	A complete range of service
explosives including propellants, high explosives, and pyrotechnic materials, in full mass production. These were being assembled into complete rounds of gun ammunition, produced from Australian raw material, and covering the entire range in use in the army and navy.
Small arms ammunitions: Production mostly of the Red Label class, the highest quality, made especially for use in aircraft machine guns. Armour-piercing, tracer, and incendiary types also produced.
Small arms: Rifles, Lewis gun components, land service and also right and left air-cooled aircraft patterns.
Precision instruments and optical munitions for equipment of -artillery, including searchlight equipment.
Armoured fighting vehicles: Machine-gun carriers, which have superseded armoured ears.
Wireless sets: All patterns, mainly of Australian design for all services.
Miscellaneous items: Assault boats, pontoons, and other bridging equipment, and a range of engineers' stores running into several hundred separate items.
All -this means a magnificent effort; and we must always remember that Australia has only two-thirds the population of Canada, and about one-half our natural wealth.
I know I speak for the whole of the people of Canada when I pay my profound tribute of praise to this great dominion. I heartily congratulate its gallant people, but I can assure them that, although Canada may have been slow in starting, we will be in strong at the finish.
If Australia can be frank about their contribution, as they have been, there is no reason- why Canada should not be; and if they make public their figures, I am not prepared at this time to accept the conventional answer of the Prime Minister that disclosure of Canada's contribution in terms of units will give comfort to the enemy. That can be only if Canada's contribution is as small as some people in this country are now beginning to suspect. Moreover, if our contribution had been what it should have been, there would certainly then have been no room for
rejoicing in Germany. But however unpalatable the truth of our unpreparedness may be, let us have the truth. If Australia has made a good beginning and we a bad one, let us say to Australia: "To-day we are lagging behind you, but to-morrow we will be racing you to the post. We are now on our way."
The Prime Minister took great pains to prove that his place, as Prime Minister of Canada, was in Canada and not in England at any time. Our friend, the Hon. W. D. Herridge, and others, must have been greatly gratified to have so much attention paid to his suggestions that the Prime Minister should go to England and see at first-hand for himself the whole position and the necessities of the situation.
The Prime Minister's remarks constituted at least an indirect rebuke to Mr. Menzies, the Australian Prime Minister, who is now in London, and who stated in a broadcast on his arrival there that he had gone to England to secure information and first-hand knowledge and to endeavour to coordinate the war effort of Australia and Great Britain, which it had not been possible to do without direct communication.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to misrepresent me or what I said. My references were entirely to the establishment of a war council in England at the present time, not to a visit to England at any time. My hon. friend says "at any time." I made no such statement. I said there were times when it would be appropriate to go, but I did not think this was the time to establish an imperial war council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Possibly I was wrong, but I will come to that again a little later; I intend to deal with it quite fully.
If the methods of communication described by the Prime Minister between the British government and the Canadian government are so satisfactory, and if the high commissioner in London is acting with such great capacity, why has it been necessary for five ministers of this government to go overseas between November of 1939 and this date? That is the query I put to the Prime Minister.
Early in the war the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) went overseas, presumably to sell our wheat surplus. We have never been told the result of his operations. If they had been successful I am sure we should have heard of them.
Next to go was the late Minister of National Defence, who early last session made his report. He went definitely, I should say, for the purpose of first-hand consultation. The
946	COMMONS
The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
high commissioner was there; the telephone and the cable were functioning then, as now; but he went-and properly so

for the purpose of ascertaining at first hand, by observation and consultation, what was to be done and what was needed. Indeed I think it was so stated in the press. Otherwise why should he go at all? If the Prime Minister's statement of Monday last is well founded, there was no need of his going; but that was not the theory then, and I submit that it is not a sound theory now.
Then the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) went overseas. I am sure every Canadian who has followed anxiously our war effort thought he did the proper thing. I know I did. He must have felt the necessity for going, for he went; and not only did he go himself but he took with him his chief of staff, his principal executive assistant, Colonel Magee, and other high ranking officers. Why? Surely for the purpose of observation and first-hand consultation with the British authorities. Don't tell me that he went merely for the purpose of reviewing the Canadian divisions or for consultation with General McNaughton, important though the latter no doubt was. Undoubtedly he went for the all-important purpose of gaining first-hand information for the future guidance of himself, the cabinet and their advisers. To suggest anything else is to insult our intelligence. In due course I hope he will tell us, with some detail, the results of his mission.
Next to go over was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). We all know he went, because on many occasions since his return he has told us so. Just why he went, however, is not so absolutely clear. If it was for the purpose of selling our bacon and cheese, I suggest that he could have done quite as well by staying at home.
Finally the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) went, and quite properly so; for if he did as I hope he did, and consulted with the British authorities respecting the production of materials and equipment, his visit will have served a most useful purpose. So far we have not been privileged to hear with any detail of the observations he made or the plans he brought back, but I invite him to tell us at the first appropriate opportunity; and I know his remarks will be reassuring.
The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Munitions and Supply are key ministers who can ill afford to be absent from their desks and duties in Ottawa, but they went overseas because in their opinion it was necessary, and the proper and best thing to be done in the circumstances.
I come now to the question of an imperial war cabinet. I have not heard anybody-

at least anybody in authority-argue that there should be set up immediately an imperial war
cabinet, but the Prime Minister should not close the door to the possibility of going to England, perhaps to participate in an imperial war cabinet or conference. I have an idea, though I am no authority at all, that good results would follow from such a cabinet, as they did during the last war. Anyone who reads the memoirs of Sir Robert Borden I think will understand the reason for the setting up of the war cabinet and the good that came from it. Only yesterday the London Dispatch put forward the suggestion that Prime Minister Churchill fly to the United States to confer with President Roosevelt. It is suggested in the United States that if this could be done the results of the proposal would be tremendous. Personally I do not think it is possible for him to do so, but underlying that suggestion is the thought that by personal conference things might be done which cannot be done by other means of communication.
At all events, many people in this country have no confidence that there is complete cooperation between the British government and the Canadian government, that there is coordination of purpose and action, and that we are doing all that the British situation requires. The government refuses to lay on the table the papers which would establish the facts, and we do not know. I suggest that from a visit of the Prime Minister to Britain might come complete unity of purpose and action, and increased effectiveness of our war effort.
The Prime Minister has devoted a great deal of attention to our representation abroad other than in Great Britain. What is the total cost of our foreign representation? I invite the Prime Minister to tell the country. And what is the position with respect to Japan? The previous minister, Hon. Randolph Bruce, retired on December 17, 1938, over two years ago, and no new appointment has been made. During critical developments in the far east there has been no Canadian minister in Tokyo to assist the British ambassador and to keep the Canadian Prime Minister in close touch with those developments. Why do we maintain an expensive legation in Tokyo, for which there is an estimate of $59,000 provided this j'ear, and leave it without a minister for over two years? Is it possible that this seat is being kept warm, as some people have hinted, for the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie)? I think he would be a pretty good chap; why not ship him over there?
Then with respect to the position in Washington, I regret as much as anyone to learn

The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
of the illness of Mr. Loring Christie; but from the information I have gleaned since the Prime Minister spoke on the seventeenth I have no doubt in the world that there is an immediate necessity for the appointment of an outstanding Canadian citizen as Canadian minister to Washington, and that he should not necessarily be a career diplomat. In fact I think the appointment should be given to a man who is not a career diplomat. It should be given to one who can represent Canada with dignity and authority; one who, on occasion, can speak to the people of the United States as Lord Lothian did and as Lord Halifax will- and as Mr. Christie did not. Recently I have seen the suggestion that Mr. Leighton McCarthy, K.C., of Toronto, is to be appointed to this position. Mr. McCarthy is an outstanding Canadian citizen, and if he is appointed I am sure he will do good work for Canada down there at a time when it is absolutely necessary for us to have the best possible representation.
I suggest further, Mr. Speaker, that there should be associated with the minister an outstanding industrialist-not a mere departmental official such as Mr. Mahoney or Mr. Carswell-who will work in close cooperation with Mr. Purvis and the British mission. I am not casting any aspersions on either of those gentlemen I have named. I know Mr. Mahoney well; I am indebted to him for courtesies on more than one occasion. He knows his way about Washington, but he is a departmental official and has not the status that an oustanding industrialist would have down there representing this government. I recall that during the last war Mr. Lloyd Harris, of Brantford, an outstanding Canadian industrialist and a man who at one time occupied a prominent position in this parliament, was appointed to head a Canadian mission in Washington. It is true that this was before we had a minister, and there was great necessity for such a mission. I suggest that from the standpoint of coordinated effort in production the necessity of such an outstanding industrialist, standing side by side with our Canadian minister to Washington, is just as great to-day as it was then. And as a tribute to our vital interest in the United States and the importance of our represensta-tion in that country, might it not be wise to raise our minister there to ambassadorial rank? I invite the Prime Minister to give consideration to this suggestion. Rank means something, even in the United States.
The Prime Minister definitely closed the door to the appointment of an overseas minister. In my view, it is unwise to do so. I think I suggested early last session that this might be a good move. The circumstances
which led to the appointment of an overseas minister in the last war may well recur. At that time Sir George Perley was there, and he certainly was a trusted confidant of Sir Robert Borden, certainly as trusted as Mr. Massey is by the Prime Minister; but the appointment of an overseas minister became necessary in his time to help and assist him and to coordinate effort; and the circumstances which led to the appointment at that time may well recur, if indeed they have not already done so.
But there is a matter of much greater importance looming up. Is Canada to be represented in the consultations which must precede the planning of the campaign which will develop after the battle of Britain has been fought and won? Is Canada to be represented in the task of planning the offensive in 1942? I know we have in Lieutenant-General McNaughton a soldier of first-class rank and importance and ability. But can he represent Canada in such conferences and speak with authority for the Canadian government? I suggest that no one but a minister of the crown, who is a member of our cabinet and bound to the principles of cabinet responsibility and solidarity can speak for Canada in such matters, acting always on the advice and responsibility of the chief of our overseas army.
Has Mr. Massey, in his present position, the authority to represent Canada in such matters and in such manner? I think the answer is no; that he must merely be an intermediary between the cabinet here and such conferences, and that he will have no authority. Indeed, he would not assume such authority. No one who is not of cabinet rank would presume to do so.
Reverting again to the question of an imperial war cabinet, may I recall to the minds of hon. gentlemen a statement made in the War Memoirs of David Lloyd George, volume IV, at page 1765, in which he says:
But the value of the cabinet and conference were vastly greater than their immediate utility as an instrument for discussing our common war problems, and with the extent and method of the help which the dominions could supply.
I should like the house to note these words:
The meetings had an immense importance for the consolidation of the British empire. The imperial cabinet did not end with a discussion of common problems; it directed common action in events of solemn magnitude which were shaking the earth and shaping the destinies of the people in every clime and continent. The fact bred alike a new individual dignity, and a more conscious solidarity. In our discussions there was less concentration, in the minds of the dominion premiers, on the sectional interests of the part of the empire which each represented, and more eagerness to pull
948	COMMONS
The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
together to secure a maximum achievement in our joint effort. We were partners, not only in a commonwealth, but in a crusade. And the fine spirit thus engendered proved to be of critical value when, after the war, we came to complete that review of the empire's constitution which had received its preliminary survey while we were in such temper.
Nor was the work confined to our discussi^s round the conference table. The visiting dominion premiers took advantage of their presence here to travel around the country, to meet with the people of the homeland, and deepen by speech and interview our sense of common purpose and imperial unity. Mr. Hughes, of Australia, had done some invaluable work of this order when he was here in 1916. Meantime, his work was continued by Sir Robert Borden of Canada. . . .
I suggest to the house and to the country that this estimate by Mr. Lloyd George of the value of the imperial war cabinet and imperial war conferences appears to be very important, therefore I have read it into the record; and I hope it will provide food for thought for the right hon. gentleman and his government.
The Prime Minister intimated that membership in the Canadian cabinet would be an embarrassment to the Canadian government representative in London, as well as to the government itself; and to establish his point he introduced somewhat novel constitutional principles. But it is a matter of record that Mr. Bonar Law told Sir Robert Borden in the last war that Sir George Perley's status as acting high commissioner, until the formation of the union government, was greatly enhanced by his membership in the cabinet, and that his prestige was greater than it would have been if he were merely high commissioner. Accepting Mr. Bonar Law's advice, Sir Robert Borden retained Sir George Perley as a member of the cabinet until the formation of the union government, at which time Sir George became permanent high commissioner, and Sir Edward Kemp, overseas minister.
With reference to our diplomatic relations with France, I have a few observations to make. The delicate diplomatic situation between ourselves and unoccupied France calls, for, I think, greater clarification than the Prime Minister has given us. Every Canadian, be he of French- or English-speaking origin, desires the rehabilitation of France as a great nation, and is prepared to do whatever is possible to that end. I do not suggest what is the duty of the government in the premises.
I do think it is the clear duty of this government to take every necessary action to strengthen the hand of Marshal Petain and his government as at present constituted, but only so long as they fight against the pressure being exerted to secure direct French collaboration against Britain and the empire.

If we can offer any inducement or assistance to enable them to resist the conqueror's efforts to secure Mediterranean bases and the use of the French fleet, we should do so. But we must safeguard ourselves against any possible advantage being gained by the enemy through our continued maintenance of diplomatic relations with the Vichy government.
I would ask the Prime Minister to state to the house whether the present situation has the full consent and approval of the British government. If it has, then I am content.
With respect to representation in Latin American countries, I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that in war time, and having regard to the huge war appropriation bill which is now' before the house and all that it involves, he should give pause before he embarks on a spending campaign for the purpose of establishing diplomatic relations with the south American republics, unless it be that he visualizes the day when we shall join the pan-American union and the north American axis.
The establishment of Canadian legations in the Argentine and Brazil will not be an important contribution to our war effort. It will be no contribution at all, and that is what matters at the moment. I doubt if it will be even an important contribution to our trade efforts with those countries. A trade mission to these countries, or a representative located in the capital of each of them, could and would do a great deal of good for Canada's export trade; but I have never yet learned that Canada's trade was in any way furthered by the appointment of a diplomatic representative. I have urged from the beginning the appointment of some sort of trade mission to these countries, but so far nothing has been done except the minister's visit last winter, which, unfortunately, was more or less abortive because of his illness.
It was upon the theory that Canada's material as well as diplomatic interests would be greatly enhanced with Japan that we set up a legation there. The former occupant of that position impressed upon me personally the desirability of his being knighted so that he would have a higher status and could do more for Canada's trade with Japan. He had his way and was knighted, but I never heard that it was a very effective proposal from the point of view of trade. The Prime Minister suggests that trade commissioners do not have direct access to governments. That is true, but I suggest that that is not the vital and essential point. What is vital and what is essential is the fact that trade commissioners do have access to business men for the sale

The War-Mr. Coldwell
of Canadian goods and the exchange of commodities between the countries. That is the important point involved.
I have already on another occasion referred to the tribute paid by the Prime Minister to the memory and work of the late Doctor Skelton, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have paid my own brief though inadequate tribute to his memory, and I shall not repeat now what I said then.
In conclusion, I desire to make a few brief observations with respect to Canada's position in external affairs at the present time and during the post-war period. These observations are based entirely upon the theory that Britain will win the war and will not be destroyed, that Canada will assist her in that effort and will not be invaded.
I suggest to the house and to the country that in the present and future circumstances continued membership in the British commonwealth of nations is a fundamental condition of Canada's freedom, prosperity and security; that without the survival of the British commonwealth, Canada's free national life 'is doomed to extinction; that the friendship and cooperation of the United States are and will remain a condition of survival for Britain and the commonwealth, and the hope of renewed freedom to France and her northern neighbours. For the permanence of this essential transatlantic friendship, Canada has a special responsibility.
The boundary between Canada and the United States is the line of closest contact between the political system of the British commonwealth and its allies, on the one hand, and the republics of the Americas, on the other. Canada has been destined, by geography and by history, to become more and more the bridge, not only between Britain and the United States but between the old world and the new. To fulfil this, her high destiny, Canada must cherish active association in the British commonwealth and must avoid policies that tend to continental or hemispherical isolation which would weaken or nullify Canada's broader connections.
The Americas cannot stand alone. Neither in economic resources, in man power nor in institutional developments can an isolated America find the means of preserving a free world or freedom for any of the nations of the Americas. No matter how desirable closer cooperation with the United States may be- and I welcome such a spirit-every step toward such closer relations must be matched by constructive movement toward continuing full cooperation in the British commonwealth, and especially with Great Britain.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate this afternoon I do so with some timidity because I realize that we are discussing the external affairs of Canada rather than the internal economy of our country and its relation to our war effort. For several days we have been considering the war appropriation resolution, and in all probability we shall continue to discuss it for a considerable number of hours. Consequently the few remarks which I shall make this afternoon will be confined rather to our relations with other countries and to one aspect of our war effort which I do not think has been sufficiently emphasized.
I know it is of great fundamental importance that we should organize our economic strength in order that we may give to the cause in which we are engaged that assistance which we can best give. But there is another phase of the struggle to which I think sufficient attention has not been given, that which I would term the political arm of the struggle. We have been dealing with the military activities, we have been dealing with the economic activities; I suggest that we ought to be giving some attention to the political activities of the allied nations.
What are we fighting for? That question is being asked in our own country, and, particularly, in the United States. Those of us who have been following the debate in the United States congress on the lease-lend bill will have noticed that on more than one occasion a senator or representative has introduced that angle into the discussion. One of the supporters of the measure is Senator Austin. No one can accuse him of being lukewarm to our cause, but .1 notice that a few days ago he once more raised that question in the discussion of the lease-lend proposals.
It seems to me that we are fighting for the things for which the common people of Great Britain are fighting. In the mighty struggle across the seas the common people of Great Britain are throwing their full weight and support into the war because they believe that out of it will come something better than they or the world have ever known. I am disturbed when I read of prominent people in our own country taking issue with what has been said by men like J. B. Priestley or Right Hon. Ernest Bevin. I read with a great deal of interest the report of a speech made by Senator Meighen, not in the other place but at a public function at Toronto. He is reported to have said:
Mr. Bevin says that universal socialism, with the rights that are the heritage of the common man, is to come all at once upon us. Privileges are to go at once and forever, and the state is to take charge of the nation's affairs, in all departments.

The War-Mr. Coldwell
Of course Mr. Bevin did not say quite that. What Mr. Bevin and the other leaders of Britain's dynamic labour forces have said is that out of this war must come a newer and a better way of life, a newer and a better society in -which man will be able to find security and the right to enjoy the fruits of his labour and the fruits of the great scientific age in which we live. I should like to quote the comment of Mr. Meighen. He said:
la that what we are battling for? I think not. If this is the direction in which we move; if property, profit, the reward of toil, the fundamental instinct of the human race to gain, to acquire, to have, to reach somewhere is taken away, then I, for one, do not feel that we have anything worth fighting for.
I venture to say that if a man connected with one of our trade unions or farmer organizations, pointing to the condition of unemployment and the poverty of the agricultural producer who has produced too much, had dared to say something of this sort on a public platform in Toronto, the attorney general of Ontario would have laid a charge against him for his utterances as being subversive of our war effort. And I say that a statement of this kind is subversive of our war effort because while perhaps Senator Meighen overemphasized one phase of what Mr. Bevin said, nevertheless it is true that the common people of Canada and of other lands are not fighting this war so that a few men may gain, a few profit and a few acquire, but rather that the fruits of human labour and of the age in which we live may be more properly distributed than we have known them to be in days past. Other leaders of the British labour forces have said much the same thing. For example, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, who you will recollect at the eleventh hour, nay the twelfth hour after Munich, rose in the House of Commons when the fate of Poland was in the balance and even those in opposition to him called to him to speak for England. Said Mr. Greenwood:
It is urgent, in this great struggle, that the whole of our material resources should be mobilized behind the national cause. The only way to do this is the socialist way, not perhaps in every detail as we have thought it out in days of peace, but in principle and spirit. War may alter the method, but it cannot alter the socialist purpose, which is to bend all our national resources to public ends.
It is true, of course, as I said the other afternoon that the word "socialist" to-day has a good many meanings and its meaning all depends on who uses it. While the fundamental principles are there, there are those who tried to prostitute the meaning of the word because socialism was popular in some countries and unpopular in others, and they

used it in different ways in different countries according to whether it was popular or unpopular there.
But we of this little group in the House of Commons are supporting this struggle because we want to fight for the things for which the British people fight. We are not supporting the struggle in order that the system which allowed men to acquire and to gain control of vast amounts of profit should be perpetuated.
Wben we met in our annual convention last October we received a greeting as we usually do from the Labour party of Great Britain, for throughout our entire existence they have recognized that our philosophy and theirs meet not only at many points but at all points, and I should like to place on the record our reply to their greeting so that there may be no misunderstanding as to what our position is in relation to the present struggle. We sent this telegram, which was approved by our entire convention:
Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in national convention appreciates greetings from Labour party. Convention has authorised national executive to express gratification for the magnificent contribution labour is making towards the preservation of human liberty, and the leadership it is giving in interpreting democracy in terms of social betterment. Our convention assures the Labour party of our wholehearted support in carrying on the war and in its efforts to build a new and better social order.


Mr. REID:: If the hon. member would permit a question, he said that the British Labour party or the British Socialist party met the views of his own party at all points. Might I ask if the British Labour party agree that production should be for use and not for profit?


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly.


Thomas Reid: The British Labour party?


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly, it has exactly the same philosophy that we have in that regard, namely that production should be for use and not for profit; that is to say, that the motive of production should be the motive of consumption or of use, and not the motive merely of making a profit for the people who happen to own the resources and the machinery of production. That is the philosophy which stands behind all movements like our own throughout the world, and incidentally may I tell my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) that a convention of the clergy assembled recently at Malvern, England, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of York said in their main resolution that out of this war must come a cooperative commonwealth in which the motive for production must not be profit but consumption. It is the same idea. Of course that does not

The War-Mr. Coldwell
mean, as some people seem to infer, that the retailer who handles a pound of tea should not sell it for 35 cents when he paid only 25 cents for it. Nothing of the kind, because in that extra ten cents are various items-his rent, payment for his labour, overhead. That is not profit. It is merely a reward for the services which he is rendering to society, which is an entirely different thing. The definition which I have just given is the one which is accepted by all economic writers who know exactly what they are talking about.
I said a few moments ago that I wanted to say something about the political aims of this war. First of all let us turn for a moment to see how the German nazis have appealed to some people in the countries which they have overrun and how they have been able to dominate the thinking in those countries. True, they have in mind a Europe organized completely as one great economic whole, and dominated completely from Berlin. But they go further than that. They want a world organized and dominated from Germany; there is no question about that. The economic proposals of Germany are for a single monetary system in Europe, a single economy for Europe, and such as it is, if it may be dignified by the name, a single culture for Europe-all of course controlled from Berlin by the people who to-day control Germany and to a large extent Europe. This, it seems to me, is an even wider aim than Napoleon ever had. Napoleon had as an ideal the removal of the national boundaries in Europe, or at least the binding together of Europe under the leadership of France. Hitler, however, would not bind all Europe together under the leadership of Germany, but, rather, would bind it together under the domination of Germany for exploitation by the German political party of which he happens to be the head.
Throughout Europe and throughout the world there are people who profoundly disagree with such an aim. They are to be found, as I have said, in every country; and surely we should take every opportunity of appealing to these people. Let us remember that this is not a war between Britain and Germany; it is a war between the way of life which we visualize and the way of life which the nazis visualize; and unquestionably millions of people now under German domination sympathize with our point of view rather than with that of those who dominate them at the present time. To my mind it is a profound mistake to talk about exterminating or destroying the German people. There are many Germans in concentration camps, or underground, or in exile across the world, who have a more bitter hatred-and with reason-of Hitler than any one of us can possibly have. We should be appealing to those people.
Nor should we forget this, as I heard J. B. Priestley say over the radio a week ago last night, that there are among us those who are as much enemies to the things for which we fight as are the German nazis. There are among us those who speak our language, share our blood, are of our people and our race, whose ideas have more in common with those of Hitler than with those of the democratic leaders in this great struggle.
Let me repeat: The people who once formed the forward-looking movements of Europe- the great social-democratic movements of Norway, Denmark, Holland, France, Germany itself-are not all dead. We have allies in every conquered country, and I believe that the victory of our cause will depend upon the extent to which, when the time comes, these people are able to and will assist us in the struggle. We must, therefore, appeal to our potential allies everywhere. Sometimes our cause is badly served by people who are high up in our own state. Recently there was published a little pamphlet called The Black Record, by a high diplomatic officer of the British government, Sir Robert Vansittart. In that pamphlet he does nothing but condemn all the people who have lived in Germany for a long period of time. To my mind we shall have to seek potential allies among some of the very people who are now under the heel of Hitler.
The road which lies ahead of this country and of the other nations participating in this war is undoubtedly long and terrible. I sometimes think that our cause is not well served in another particular, that often we give too much credit to Hitler and those round him for their ingenuity, their ability to think up new ways of waging war and of frightening their opponents. After all, if a nation is frightened it is already partly conquered. One of the reasons why I believe that the British people will eventually win the great struggle which lies ahead of them is that they have refused to be frightened. They have heard, and some of us have heard, the broadcasts of Lord Haw-Haw and other propagandists of Germany telling them of the terrors that lie ahead. But, although quite properly they are alarmed, they have refused to become frightened. In my opinion we should try to give our own people the idea that we, too, can prepare some surprises; that we, too, can garner together a great strength, and that we, too, can go forward to ultimate victory. That is one of the reasons why I should like to see at this session of parliament a full and frank discussion of our country's war effort, so that we may know exactly where our weaknesses and our strength lie. May I tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that,
The War-Mr. Coldwell

having crossed this country twice in the last several months and met a large number of people, I know there is a great deal of criticism, much of it in all probability not well founded, but it is there because this parliament has not thoroughly gone into every detail of our war effort, as perhaps we ought to have done.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) contrasts our own war effort with that of Australia. We of this little group have always held the view that Canada's best contribution can be made, not in raising large bodies of men and sending them overseas, but in organizing our industrial strength so that, without profit to any individual, we can provide Great Britain with quantities of equipment, when air raids have devastated industries and made it difficult for her to provide for herself; and that, it seems to me, is still the best effort, by a long way, that we can make. Moreover, I would go so far as to say that, if we adopt that policy, much of this production should be a gift from Canada rather than an account which some day we shall collect.
May I also say in this regard that it would be well if the government paid some heed to criticisms which are being made, in another particular, of the lend-lease bill in the United States. I have heard United States commentators say that Great Britain is asking of the United States something which Canada is not giving; that she is asking their country to lease-lend equipment, but that she is paying for all the equipment she receives from Canada. Obviously that is not true, but I have heard nothing that offsets that argument, and I have heard it repeated on a number of occasions over various United States networks as I have listened to the Washington news at night. They are networks to which our people in Canada listen, as I often do when I am at home myself. It conveys an utterly wrong picture of what this country is doing, because we are maintaining at our own expense a comparatively large force across the seas in Britain and Iceland as well as in the outlying parts of this continent; and at the moment we are supplying that force with large quantities of equipment.
The leader of the opposition made a comparison with Australia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not a
comparison; I simply said what Australia was doing.


Major James William Coldwell: The leader of the
opposition praised Australia. I, too, would join in that praise of our sister dominion. She has done a remarkable job. But I wonder how many in this house know that the smaller

dominion of New Zealand, with a population of less than 1,000,000, has done relatively more than Australia, has done relatively more than any of our British dominions. Is this not significant; for that country has had in power for the last six years a labour government, a government which at Geneva, on every occasion during those years, protested against the desertion of the principles of collective security by the great powers and urged that the security of New Zealand, as of every other nation, depended upon such collective effort.
We have witnessed in the last two years, ever since we guaranteed the Polish boundaries on March 31, 1939, an attempt to rebuild some system of collective security which we had failed to preserve when we had an opportunity to preserve it in bygone years.
One other observation I would make, and I would draw this particularly to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Most of the members of the present New Zealand government opposed the last war. A number of them spent a good deal of the war-time period in the gaols of New Zealand because they were conscientious objectors opposed to the war of that day; and there are many people in Canada and across the seas who, having watched the attitudes of the governments of the world before this war came upon us, feared that those governments were much more interested in preventing the rise of progressive movements in Europe than in preserving democracy in that hemisphere. But now, when the battle is joined and the leadership towards a greater measure of democracy is apparent in the nation which heads this great effort, these fears have to a large extent been removed, although not entirely, from the minds of most of our people.
I said that a great struggle was ahead of us. Those of us, and I am one, who have near relatives in the very heart of this great struggle, hear from time to time their reactions to what is going on. At the present time I have right in the city of London a sister whose home has been partly destroyed by bombs. But the thing that heartens and cheers me is that, in spite of all that they are going through, there is no weakening of the morale of the people. They are determined that there shall be but one end to this great struggle, and that one end is the destruction of all that threatens us to-day.
I believe that at last w'e are preparing for the task which lies immediately ahead of us. These preparations must be speeded up, and in all the criticisms that we have made and shall make of the government in this regard, that will be the thought in our minds; for, after all, in a democratic chamber it would be

The War-Mr. Coldwell
a great misfortune if we were all of one mind, if we were all of a single government group. A virile opposition is a valuable spur to any government, and I only wish that the opposition in this chamber at the present time came closer to the number to be found on the government side of the house. I believe that would be of great advantage to the government and to the country at this particular time.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Time will cure that.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps it will, but I am thinking of the situation at the moment.


Ernest Lapointe: That is where the strengthening is needed.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a war of
machines; therefore the contribution that we can make in the industrial field is, I believe, the best contribution that we can offer at the present time, and it ought to be our principal effort. But if that principal effort is to be carried through, as it ought to be, then we must remember that those engaged in making these machines, those engaged in industrial labour, are as vital to our war effort as the men who are at present training in uniform. We shall make a grave mistake if we do not take labour into our confidence at every phase of the war effort.
I listened, as some others here this afternoon did, to Sir Walter Citrine when he addressed the Canadian club in the Chateau Laurier some time in January. He made it abundantly clear that the reason why British labour had foregone some of their old rights and privileges was that they had absolute confidence in their leaders and were organized to the fullest extent. They were thus able to discuss their affairs with the government and with employers' organizations on an equal footing, and consequently industrial difficulties that arose had been ironed out.
One of our misfortunes is that in our country to-day labour is only partly organized. I have heard it said that it is not more than twenty per cent organized. It may be more than that, but in any event it is not fully organized. Yet we find that there are economic Bourbons in Canada who are trying to prevent the organization of labour. If they only knew where their own best interests lie, they would encourage the organization of their employees in order that there might be an instrument with which to iron out industrial difficulties. If industrial troubles arise in Canada in the future, they will arise not from the fully organized labour groups, but from the sporadically organized groups without the experience of the great labour
organizations which could give them the sort of advice they ought to have. If our war effort is to be successful, we should see to it that we do not allow discontent and dissatisfaction to permeate the ranks of any part of labour in this country.
One other factor I should like to mention in connection with our war effort is the condition of agriculture. After all, we have in Canada several million people who are engaged in various agricultural pursuits. To-day their principal product is not needed, because war has cut us off from the markets of the world. A short time ago I again saw huge piles of wheat lying out under the snow in the part of the west which I represent in this house. I know of one man who has a pile of wheat sixteen feet deep, containing over sixteen thousand bushels. There it lies, covered with sheaves, out under the snow. I am not saying that this is the fault of the government; I am pointing out that men in that situation have piles of wheat but have not the necessary money with which to buy those commodities that are essential to the welfare of themselves and their families.
I would urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to let these men on the prairies know now what is expected of them during the coming summer. Here it is February 24; in less than eight weeks in the constituency which I represent men will be seeding their land. It is not too early now to give them an indication of what is to be expected -of them. If we are going to have a quota system, then let our people know what their quotas will be in order that they may make their plans accordingly; for, as I have said in this house before and as I repeat to-day, those quantities of food piled high, which appear to be a liability and a drug upon the market, ere the war ends may become an incentive to the distressed and starving peoples of Europe to rise against their masters in order that they may receive a portion of the bounty which nature has showered upon us. Therefore, in our war effort we should not overlook agriculture but should see to it that agriculture receives proper consideration at this time.
I have one other point I want to place before the house. We must begin at once to prepare for the conditions that are going to come upon this country after the war. When I think of what may happen when the war ends, it seems almost like a nightmare. We say we are going to place an additional three hundred thousand men, and perhaps some women, in industry in the next
The War-Mr. Coldwell

year or so; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) told us that the other day. The Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) has told us of plans for training thousands of men for the new industries that are now coming into operation; plans which, if I may say so, seem somewhat inadequate. Should the war end with a victory within six months, what are we going to do with these hundreds of thousands of men who will be demobilized from industry, particularly if we add to them the many thousands who will be demobilized from the armed forces of the crown? I fear that unless we are properly prepared, we court great social trouble, almost social chaos. I do not think these men, some of whom have known poverty and unemployment, some of whom have ridden the rods from one end of this country to the other, will consent to be placed back in a position where they will live at a level lower than that of decent subsistence, and perhaps have to ride the rods again.
I am most anxious to see the ablest committee that can be appointed by the government and by this house begin now to make plans for that future day. It may not be- I hope it is not-as far off as we sometimes fear it might be. I noticed a short time ago, I think in the press, a report that the Prime Minister had appointed a committee of departmental officials. This is not enough, although I have confidence in many of our departmental officials. Like the leader of the opposition, when Doctor Skelton died I felt that, without making any comparison that might be taken in a wrong way, Canada had lost its greatest civil servant, a man who served this country as few others have ever served it. Therefore I have no criticism to offer of many of our departmental officials, but they view matters from the departmental angle, and we need a committee with a wider viewpoint.
Finally, I hope our government will maintain and extend its friendly relations with the United States. Indeed, I hope the government will maintain and extend its friendly relations with all the peoples of the American hemisphere. Contrary to the view expressed by the leader of the opposition, I think it an excellent thing that representatives are to be appointed to the principal south American countries. I am glad the Prime Minister is going to appoint someone to take over the load that cannot now be carried by Mr. Christie because of ill health. May I respectfully submit to the Prime Minister that when he appointed Mr. Christie I thought he made an exceedingly good appointment, because it was a well deserved promotion for a man who

had served Canada well in the public service. I was hoping that the right hon. gentleman might be able to find among those in his department some other trained official who could take over that post in the United States. I repeat what I said a few moments ago. I consider it most important that we should maintain the closest contact with the United States, that we should have representation there able to meet any criticism, of ourselves or of our war effort, of the type to which I referred a little earlier in my remarks.
These are some of the thoughts that we have in mind at the present time. As regards the actual details of our war effort, we shall have another opportunity of discussing them on another measure. All I want to say now is that we hope that the next few months, very difficult though they may be, will result in a victory for our cause, and that in the meantime we may consider our internal conditions and prepare to meet the problems that inevitably will arise when this war ends.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I represent a group and a movement which, while a definitely reform movement, advocates something which is almost diametrically opposed to what has been advocated by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Coldwell). We do not believe it will be necessary to take away from men the incentive for action, the right to own and control their own property, their own industry. We do not believe it will be necessary to take away from men the right to rule themselves, not only as large units but as smaller units. We believe we have a method which, if adopted and applied wisely and honestly, will accomplish the ends which I have mentioned.
My remarks will have more or less to do with the internal economy of the country. I am going to quote from the Prime Minister's speech three small excerpts which might form a text for my remarks. The first is found on page 806 of Hansard:
It is not possible to divorce war enactments and the foreign policy on which they are necessarily based. This is particularly the case at a time of war when both foreign policy and war measures themselves are focused upon the successful prosecution of the war.
With that I entirely agree.
From page 809 I quote the following words:
That the forces of freedom will triumph in the end, I have no doubt whatever. But equally I believe, as I have already so frequently said, that the road is going to be much harder, much longer and much more terrible than most people imagine. We should govern our thoughts and actions accordingly.

The War

Mr. Blackmore
Again I find myself in complete agreement with the Prime Minister.
Finally, on page 813 I find these words:
The united national support of each dominion for its war effort will continue throughout the war to he more important than all else. Under constantly changing conditions, that unity will, I believe, be better maintained by the presence of the prime minister at the head of the administration at home than at the council table in London.
Upon the latter sentence I shall not make any pronouncement; my point of view would be that it is the Prime Minister's own business whether he stays at home or goes abroad. We elected him to use his discretion, and whatever he chooses to do he will have my support in doing it. With the former sentence I heartily agree.
What I am going to say next may meet with less approval than what I have already said. I have said two or three times that when I felt that the government were following policies injurious to the Dominion of Canada I would take every opportunity to oppose those policies, and would indicate the points on which I believed they were in error. I should like to quote now some small excerpts from the supplementary submission by the government of the province of New Brunswick to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. It is not my desire to raise the contentious question of the Sirois report, but I believe that commission served a great purpose to this country in that it caused people everywhere to think about our problems and elicited from every province valuable comments upon its particular problems as well as suggestions for their solution. Having said that, I quote some words which I think will be unpalatable to most hon. members. On page 3, referring to confederation they say:
The result has been that confederation has not conduced in any way to the welfare of New Brunswick, and has been disastrous to this province.
Thus the main object of the union has been nullified and this has given rise to practically all the difficulties which now exist.
Those words are sufficiently solemn to require no comment from me. Then I read from page 6 of the same document:
Canada can only be great if it carries out its obligations. National unity can be developed and exist only on the basis of a national economy, not an international economy.
It would be unfair for me to read into those words an interpretation which perhaps they were not intended to convey, but I think everyone will grant that a person is at least free to suggest that the writer had in mind economic nationalism rather than such dependence upon trade as we have had.
I read next from page 4 of the same document. Speaking of Canada, the writer says:
Its duty is toward the provinces as provinces.
And again:
Nearly $300,000,000 of the public money of Canada are invested in the United States for the development and operation of railways, harbour facilities and even coal mines in that country.
It would take too long for me to comment on that remark. Perhaps some day I shall say more about it.
Finally, I read from page 6:
In any federal union each province or state should have a fair deal and centralization of power is fatal to the union. Centralization is unthinkable under the confederation of the British North American provinces scattered across the continent. If centralization is persisted in by parliament there is an apparent danger that it will destroy confederation.
It will now be apparent to hom. members why I selected as my text the Prime Minister's solemn remark as to the importance of Canadian unity. Doubtless all hon. members have been as much alarmed as I have by the tendency toward centralization which is apparent at the present time. I have in my hand the A.M. Papers of February 17, issued by the Department of Munitions and Supply, setting forth the contracts awarded in the week ended on that date. I find that of 110 contracts fifty-eight were placed in Ontario, thirty-one in Quebec, only eight in British Columbia, six in Manitoba, two in New Brunswick, two in Alberta, two in Saskatchewan and only one in Nova Scotia.
When the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) was being criticized on this score the other day, he defended himself by pointing out that orders were placed where they could be filled. I am not questioning that; what I am pointing out now is that in the Dominion of Canada a development has been going on which has so centralized the industry of this nation that it has become necessary to place these orders in the two central provinces. May I hasten to say that I am not finding fault in any way with Quebec or Ontario. The people of those two provinces are good Canadians and are entitled to their full share of the good things available in this nation. But let it not be forgotten for one moment that the people of every one of the nine provinces of Canada have an equal right. If that is forgotten, then unquestionably the unity of this country will be threatened, or, if not the unity, at least the strength.
May I cite another example of the dangerous centralization which is going on in Canada
The War-Mr. Blackmore

to-day? I have the Department of Munitions and Supply sheet issued on February 15, and in it I read the following words concerning a gentleman appointed as motor vehicle controller.


Mr. MARTIN:: A good man.


John Horne Blackmore: He needs to be a good man to fill that position justly and equitably. I read the following words:
The motor vehicle controller has wide powers to control and regulate the entire automotive industry. He can license any person or company manufacturing or dealing in motor vehicles. He can license manufacturers and distributors of trailers, tires, and all other motor vehicle accessories and parts. He can issue licenses to manufacturers of materials entering into the making of motor vehicles.
Again:
The controller may prohibit any person from making or dealing in motor vehicles, either entirely or to such an extent as he may see fit.
Subject to the approval of the minister, the controller may establish a quota or quotas prescribing the kind, type or model of motor vehicles, and the number of any kind, type, or model that may be made or dealt in by any person or company.
I am not going to discuss the advisability or the inadvisability, the necessity or the lack of necessity, of conferring upon such a man such powers as those. But I am going to observe that in a large measure that amount of power nullifies, during the progress of the war, the all-important provincial power over property and civil rights with respect to motor vehicles. If this man does not exercise the powers of his high office with justice, broad-mindedness and interest in the welfare of northern Saskatchewan and southern Prince Edward Island as well as of Quebec and Ontario, then the result will be a concentration of power which may injure this country quite seriously before the war is over.
Other controllers have been appointed, of whom I might mention just two, the fuel controller and the sugar controller. The powers conferred upon them are well-nigh boundless. As I understand their powers, they can close up a sugar factory or an oil well, or they can put either enterprise under such handicap as will render it economically unsound in a very short time. Should a man in one of those positions wish to destroy industry, we will say in Manitoba, in order that industry in Ontario might get the market, it would be within his power to do so. This could be done by secret devices which would not be observable to the ordinary citizen.
Some provinces are already suffering from the disastrous effects of centralized power which has been used in the past to the benefit of certain interests in the two central provinces. Several of the major disabilities of the provinces have developed as a result of the

possession and exercise by Ottawa of the power to disregard the will and the welfare of the provinces. Among these disabilities I would mention, first, the deterioration of industry or its inability to establish itself in any given province. To-day industry languishes in seven of the provinces. As an example, may I cite the state of industry in New Brunswick? Formerly that province was great and well to do, having a rich industrial life and a happy people. In support of my statement I should like to read from page 76 of the brief submitted by New Brunswick to the royal commission. I quote:
New Brunswick was in a quite different position. It was regarded as the wealthiest section of British North America. There was no racial controversy. The economic situation was satisfactory. The relations with the other provinces were amicable. It had relatively large manufacturing and commercial organizations. Banking houses, financial institutions and insurance companies were established and were giving service in the assistance of industries. The people were contented, well-ordered and enterprising. . . .
Now let hon. members recall the first statement which I read from the supplementary submission of New Brunswick; then let them ask themselves whether or not there is something that can and should be done by the members of this house to help that province.
May I read next from the New Brunswick submission at page 49, where I find a hint of the condition of industry in that province at the present time, and of the underlying reasons:
The disadvantages from which New Brunswick has suffered in relation to the tariff were further accentuated and increased by the unauthorized burden of excessive freight rates on the railways in the maritime provinces after 1912.
Principally as a result of these two elements industries became centralized in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Large companies having their head offices in Ontario and Montreal bought up many industrial plants in New Brunswick and then closed them down. The manufacturing in New Brunswick at the present time is insignificant as compared with manufacturing in other parts of the dominion.
I ask hon. members, can this government be justified in expecting from New Brunswick the war effort which she could have rendered had she been kept as strong economically as she was when she entered confederation? There will be those who will say: But that was an impossibility. I challenge that statement. It is not an impossibility for the people of any area in this richly endowed Dominion of Canada to be prosperous and happy; and if any area has become poverty stricken, it is because of faulty principles applied in policies dictated from Ottawa and forced upon the provinces.

The War-Mr. Blackmore
May I give just a simple illustration of the way in which Ottawa policies can militate against a province like New Brunswick, and of how utterly helpless New Brunswick is to prevent it. On page 63 of the New Brunswick submission hon. members will find a statement concerning Connors Brothers, Limited, canners of fish, principally sardines. In their establishment there are 600 employees. They give employment to 1,000 men engaged in fishing. There is $2,000,000 invested in the industry. Surely one would expect the dominion government to do something to assist an industry of such value in providing employment for the people of Canada and in increasing the well-being of New Brunswick. But this is what this government actually did.
This canning factory in 1937 placed an order in Maine for $5,070.04 worth of tinplate. When the goods crossed the border, the Minister of Finance was not content with charging his duty upon the $5,070.04. He set the price at $5,553, and then levied his duty upon that sum, thereby taking from the company $1,110.60. Then he imposed an excise duty of $199.91. Then he imposed further a dumping duty of $1,066.10. The result was that these duties so greatly increased the cost of the tin-plate, which constitutes a major part of the cost of the final product, that the cost to the maritime provinces was estimated at several hundred thousands of dollars annually, and the cost to the Dominion of Canada was several million dollars annually. I am not going to discuss the possible reasons for these imposts. I merely point to the fact that they were there, and that they militated against that valuable industry which was a natural industry to New Brunswick, and I point out that unless the policies at Ottawa are managed in such a way as to cause the federal government to refrain from placing such a burden upon the industries of a province, the provinces can never be prosperous or strong.
I turn now to a second major disability of the provinces-the alarming development of price disparities, bearing with especial severity upon our agricultural population. In the Searle index letter of February 19, I read the following statement:
The Searle index of the cost of things farmers buy (147 items) now stands at 142-1913 equals 100. This means that these things cost farmers of the west at the present time 42 per cent more than did similiar items of the same quality in 1913-14.
The price of wheat, No. 1 northern, on February 18, basis the open market price, was 14 per cent less than it was in 1913-14. This means, therefore, that a bushel of wheat in western Canada now has a purchasing power of
58 per cent only, in comparison with the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat in 1913-14 of 100 per cent.
The Searle index further shows that the cost of the things that farmers buy has risen 8 per cent as a result of this present war. That is, costs are now 8 per cent on the average higher for the 147 items than they were in August 1939.
Apologists for the government will urge that the prices which western farmers obtain for their products are dependent upon external market conditions, and they will point to the collapse of Holland, Denmark and all the rest of them as the reason why. Their defence is a very weak one. I shall not enter into the whole question just now, but let us as responsible members of this house bear in mind that this disability does exist, and that so long as it exists it is simply fatuous for us to expect from the people of western Canada a similar contribution in the conduct of this war to their contribution in the last war, be their will ever so strong.
There is another aspect of the question which, I think, will require much apology on the part of government supporters. The cost of binders, to take only one example, has risen since 1913, according to the figures I find in "The Cooperative Machinery Plan," published by Canadian Cooperative Implements Limited, as follows:
Year	Material Labour	Over- 1 head	Experi- mental1913...	.. $45.56 $11.97	$17.96	$ .341936. . .	.. 71.06 22.62	33.93	2.55
1940...
*
Agent	Cash	Cost in bushelscommis- Gross	price	ofYear	Freight sion margin	Regina	wheat1913...	$17.80 $30.45 $42.94	$167.02	2611936...	26.08 45.50 79.26	281.00	319
1940.. .
340.00	637
* These figures not available for 1940.			
Those machines are manufactured in Canada. It must lie within the power of the dominion government, or the Ontario government, or both, to control the price of them. Yet let me point out, what I consider a disgraceful thing, that the agent's commission rose from $30.45 in 1913 to $45.50 in 1936, and the freight, over which this government certainly has control if it chooses to exercise it, increased in the same period from $17.80 to $26.08. I am not going into further details regarding the matter. I wish merely to point out that there is here a glaring injustice, that this situation has been permitted by the government at Ottawa to develop, and that a major part of the blame must be assumed by the Mackenzie King
The War-Mr. Blackmore

administration, for it has held office most of *the time during which those changes have taken place.
The increase in price has been made notwithstanding the recommendation of a special committee of the House of Commons in 1937 on farm implement prices. The government received the recommendations of this committee, and then allowed the machine companies to increase the price next year, as if in open defiance of the government, of the committee, and of this house. And we talk about democracy! My local newspaper, the Lethbridge Herald, is very fond of picking up things which men like me say, and writing editorials about "the things that make Hitler happy." I imagine it would be very fitting for them to take this and write a good editorial on it, and I commend to them through you, sir, the suggestion that they take this set of figures and write an editorial on "making Hitler happy." How in the world could one gladden Hitler any more than to show by such things as this that in a country like Canada, with almost limitless resources, the powers that be are strangling, hampering and impairing at every turn of the road the production of this country and its fighting strength?
Not only did a committee of the House of Commons find that these prices were unjustifiably high; a committee of the Saskatchewan legislature on farm implement prices and distribution, sitting after the rise in price, recommended also that something be done. As usual, however, when any province asks the dominion government to do anything, the dominion government slaps it in the face. Let somebody call that "democracy" and defend it! Canada seems to leave her farmers to take care of themselves. Everybody can be the recipient of the most solicitous care and attention, except farmers and labouring men.
May I contrast our way of doing things with what I read concerning the United States? I hasten to say that I have not personally investigated this matter. I have again to depend upon what I read in the Searle letter. But I find in that letter, from which I quoted previously, a statement by the editor which indicates that at the present *time the United States is spending great sums of money in an endeavour to bring about price parity, which means, as hon. members know, a set of prices as a result of which the men who produce and sell have a chance to get as much for the commodities they sell as they have to give for the commodities they buy-a set of circumstances which would overcome the glaring inequities to which I 
refer in the rise of the price index. According to the Searle letter, the United States has made allowances to farmers for keeping certain land out of cultivation, for engaging in a special kind of ploughing to prevent soil erosion, for the planting of trees, or of certain kinds of designated crops and so forth. I quote:
These benefits to farmers, within the lines of this broad "parity" policy, take the form of cash payments. The editor of this Searle letter has just returned from a visit to certain parts of the United States, and finds that the state of Oklahoma, for instance (the only state of which he secured accurate records) in 1939 enjoyed a total cash income from tne sale of agricultural products of $167,000,000. Oklahoma farmers received cash payments from the federal government in addition however of $27,731,000 or approximately a 17 per cent bonus on the cash they received for their agricultural products on the market.
It is not supposed that this "parity payment", as it is called, of $27,000,000 brings the income of 213,000 Oklahoma farmers up to the desired and aimed at parity, but at least it is pretended that the cash payment is some step in that direction.
What do Canadian farmers face? Hon. members do not need to have the case reviewed. Out in Saskatchewan they are struggling to organize a cooperative with the hope of obtaining a modification in the price of implements. I contend that no group of farmers in this dominion should be obliged to organize. This government, concerned about the output of agricultural products for the conduct of this war, should be most urgently interested in the welfare of the farmers and go out to seek their needs, instead of pursuing the shifting, vacillating, uncertain, disheartening policies which have obtained in this country for the last several years, and just exactly at the time when the farmer begins to get something like a reasonable price for his butter, pegging the price, putting the ceiling in butter prices, all right, but utterly ignoring the floor.
The third great disability from which the provinces are suffering is that of an outrageously inequitable freight rate structure. No particular province is alone in this respect; I believe all are suffering. I referred for a moment or two to the exorbitant increase in the freight rates on that binder-may I quote again?-from $17.80 in 1913 to $26.08 in 1936. People will ask, perhaps, what will you do?
I am not suggesting what should be done. I think I know what should be done. I know there are many people who do not think I do. The amazing thing to me is that so many hon. members seem willing to let the patient die ra/bher than try a new remedy, and they are so cocksure and all-wise about everything one suggests to them. They can sneer and

The War-Mr. Blackmore
laugh about any new idea, at the same time that they see their country deteriorating into an abject, hopeless, impotent expanse of poverty and misery-in many cases, see their own province doing so. Meanwhile the inequity of the freight rate structure exists, and it is the duty of the men in charge of this country to see that the wrong is remedied. My time will not permit me to go into as much detail as I should like to do in connection with this matter. Probably I shall have more to say about it at some other time.
I am going to refer to a statement that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail and was reprinted on January 22 in the Fundy Fisherman dealing with freight rates from which Prince Edward Island suffers. Let me read the exact words:
Maritime province farmers have reason for complaint. According to provincial government officials attending the Ottawa conference, Prince Edward Island cheese is shipped to Montreal, weighed there and then sent back to Halifax over much the same route, for export to England. The producers receive the Montreal price, less the wholly unnecessary freight charges, since all cheese exported from Canada is paid for on the basis of Montreal prices.
I have tried that bit of information on several prominent Canadians and in every single instance they have found it utterly impossible to believe that such a condition existed or was permitted to exist in this country.
Thus, at a time when the railway between Montreal and Halifax is jammed with trains carrying vital war materials and munitions, and scores of miles of additional passing tracks had to be constructed to facilitate traffic, we have the strange spectacle of maritime province cheese destined for Britain being shipped more than a thousand miles merely for the purpose of being weighed. Is there any reason why the cheese could not be weighed and graded at Charlottetown or Halifax?
The maritime farmers have another grievance: Hogs raised within sight of Halifax harbour are paid for on the basis of prevailing Montreal prices, less the freight rate from Halifax to Montreal, which means Nova Scotia farmers get about sixty cents per hog less than Quebec farmers. That may be reasonable enough if the hogs are to be slaughtered in Montreal, but it seems a bit thick when they are killed, pickled and packed in Halifax and sent directly overseas, with the overseas price to the Canadian bacon board based on delivery at the Atlantic seaboard.
Is it any wonder the maritime producers are angry after taking the matter up with Ottawa and getting nowhere?
That last statement is, I think, a challenge to Canada. It is the fact that the maritime provinces have taken up these problems at Ottawa and have got nowhere in dealing with such flagrant abuses as this.
The whole thing shows a lack of proper consideration.
These are moderate words, I would say.
I did not take the trouble to look up authorities in this matter and I am taking what they say. My time is finished and I will close with this observation. I will merely touch upon the fourth main disability of the provinces, the credit structure, and pass on. We must take action with regard to credit facilities in Canada. Here we have four disabilities from which the provinces of this country, from end to end, are suffering excruciatingly-four disabilities which are hampering the productive power and the war strength of the nation at every turn.
In all sincerity, in all humility and good nature, I suggest to the government that they take steps immediately to remedy these abuses, that they see to it first of all that industry in Canada is decentralized; second, that price parity is established within the provinces. In order to do this, they might plan production, working with the provincial governments and with the producers that we may not have too much goods and yet have enough. Again, let them render it possible for any worthy institution or individual in Canada to obtain credit. Let them modify his costs so that he can produce. Let them provide markets for him one way or another. It may be said, "But we cannot get external markets". I am not asking for external markets. The thing that astounds me is that the men in this government do not realize that one can have internal markets without depending upon markets abroad.
Let the government manage prices by producing plenty through the bonusing of labour costs and production costs in order to allow the primary producers to get fair prices for their products and to obtain at fair prices the commodities they have to buy.
Let the government discharge their responsibility, entered into at the time of confederation, to provide freight and other transportation as a service, giving all the people throughout the dominion a fair chance in the matter of freight rates.
Let the government devise and enforce an equitable freight rates structure planned to aid producers and consumers and not to enrich the shareholders of big railways.
Finally, let the government discharge their responsibility under item 15 of section 91 of the British North America Act, in which the dominion was given charge and responsibility concerning banking and credit, which means that it is Canada's business to see that the credit-worthy people of the country receive credit whether the bankers think they ought to receive it or not.
960	COMMONS
The War-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
If the government will do these four things, they will find very soon that there will be a much more united Canada, a much more powerful Canada, a Canada that shall go forward in this great struggle with confidence and assurance, using to the full the resources God has given her.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, my reason for
taking part in this debate is more particularly that I feel it my duty to make my position clear before the house and before the country on one or two points which were raised in the house and in the newspapers last week. Before doing so, however, I wish to say a few words on the subject matter of the debate, the purpose for which the motion to go into supply is before the house, namely, external affairs.
Of course at the present time all our activities in external affairs are governed by the war. The foreign policy of Canada or of any country is determined by its national interest and by its cultural and moral structure. We are at present going through a terrible crisis. Canada accepted the necessity of this war because she could not do otherwise, and because her honour and her most sacred interests were at stake.
The British commonwealth of nations represents a civilization to which the members of that commonwealth are so deeply attached as to be ready to defend it if the need comes. Hitler is making war on the whole world, politically, morally and economically. He said himself only a few weeks ago in one of his famous vituperations:
Two worlds are in conflict, two philosophies of life. One of these two worlds must break asunder.
Britain and Canada are fighting to save and preserve the soul of man, to save the other world, the one that Hitler is trying to destroy. If, at the start of hostilities, some may have entertained different views as to where our duty lay, surely the events of the last few months must have changed their views about it. In the light of new, extraordinary and unforeseen conditions, surely they cannot stick to opinions which they might conscientiously have entertained when civilization itself was not at stake.
Our policies must be realistic, based on facts, on life. Common to all our national

groups in Canada are fundamental ideals that should unite us all. First among these is freedom of the individual; we Canadians do not want to be either tools or slaves. Second is the freedom of national groups in our community to develop their own cultural mentality and traditions; we have only to think of the ruthless destruction of Czech and Polish nationhood to know what would happen if Hitler were ever the master of Canada. Even in France, although there is an armistice, the process is in operation. I received the other day from the comite France-Amerique circulars protesting against the compulsory evacuation' by Germans of all the French citizens of Lorraine, all those whose names were not German. They were robbed of their property and expelled from their native land. Everywhere Germany has done away with the national language of the communities she has enslaved. We do not want that in Canada.
The third ideal is the liberty of the Christian faith. Does everybody realize that we to-day are witnessing the same events as happened thirteen centuries ago when the forces of Mahomet tried to dominate Christianity and forced Christians everywhere to take up arms to defend their faith? There were nations at the time which hesitated, which did not defend themselves at the start; they were conquered and they had to choose between death, slavery or adjuration of their faith. Hitler with his complex of divinity would land us back in the dark ages, but of course with the new modern technique which he has invented. As between the Cross and what it means to us and the pagan swastika and what it represents, we certainly choose to defend everything that is dear to us.
Furthermore, a nazi victory would mean the shattering of the world structure as we know it to-day. Some make the mistake of believing that civilization is secure. It is not. We have to watch over it and guard it. Before the advent of dictatorships there was stability in the world; the word of any great country was as trustworthy as its very existence. To-day the new world order is made up of gangsterism, lying and diplomatic blackguardism. If this is to be the victorious order, it will be useless for nations to engage in negotiation or enter into agreements or treaties. It would be better to have no agreements than to have broken agreements. Honesty, justice and respect for the plighted word are necessities in international relations. Until we have those, no small nation can be neutral or secure. I believe in the League of Nations, as does my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and other hon. gentlemen who have expressed them-

The War-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
selves accordingly. Perhaps it may have to be reorganized, but an international body is absolutely necessary. We shall, however, have to see to it that the pledge of all members is fulfilled and lived up to.
This is a war parliament. This government has received a mandate to lead the country in this struggle for freedom and peace. Up to this stage of my remarks apparently everyone has agreed with me, but I am afraid I am now entering another field where there may be some disagreement. Suggestions have been made in this house by hon. members for whom I have the greatest respect, and similar suggestions have appeared in certain newspapers, that we should change the complexion of this government and have what is glorified under the name of "national government." I feel it my duty to express my views frankly and respectfully, but firmly. Perhaps I am more at liberty to speak than other members of the government because I would gladly give up my own place to someone else if that were the better course to pursue. I feel sure that those who know me well, realize that it is only a sense of duty that keeps me in the position I now hold.
Mr. Asquith has said that democracy implies that the will of the people must prevail. I ask in all sincerity: Is not the present government the government which Canada said only a few months ago that she wanted during the war? Indeed, every one of us has been accepted and endorsed by the people as part of the government for the purpose of carrying on the war. This parliament is not a pre-war parliament as were the parliaments of Great Britain and New Zealand. This government is not a pre-war government. The war policies of the government were submitted to the people. The issue was fought squarely. The people were asked unequivocally whether they wanted this government to lead the country during the war or whether they wanted an aggregation of best brains, as has been suggested by some newspapers and given by my good friend, the leader of the opposition.
Every candidate of the official opposition was a candidate for a national government. Not only could that be seen in the newspapers of the time; but if hon. members will [DOT]consult the Parliamentary Guide just issued, they will see that every one of my hon. friends opposite from the leader down is [DOT]described as "N.G.", meaning "national government". Even the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), for whom I have the greatest respect and affection, is referred to in that way.


Mr. GREEN:: I was elected as a Conservative.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is referred to as "N.G.", like all the others.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister-


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, my hon. friend is " N.G." too.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that red book published by the government?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Whoever put " N.G." after my name had no business doing it. I ran as a Conservative.


Ernest Lapointe: Did my hon. friend protest before March 26?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I ran as a Conservative.


Ernest Lapointe: I congratulate my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So did I.


Ernest Lapointe: I congratulate my hon. friend. So the whole thing was a joke?


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a burlesque.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, a burlesque, and the people of Canada thought it was. I hope my hon. friends will not resent anything that I say. Thirty-nine of them were elected, but there were 206 " N.G.S " who were defeated by the people of Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I increased my majority.


Ernest Lapointe: Can my hon. friend say that the people of Canada want a national government? How can that be said without some degree of comedy? Listen to what was said in the press at the time. A leading newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press had this to say on March 27, 1940:
The government support is now so general and national in complexion that, while it may bear the Liberal label, it is, by every test that counts, a "national government." It has in some respects lost the right to call itself Liberal, for hundreds of thousands of the votes cast in its favour came from electors who are not, and never will be, Liberals at all. They were impelled to vote as they did because they resented the kind of campaign that had been waged and because (as they had every right to do) they believed llr. King and his colleagues when they announced their watchword of "no politics for the duration of the war".
Here is another one, also from the Winnipeg Free Press, written on March 13 last:
The maintenance of an effective and powerful opposition is the best guarantee a democracy has of dynamic and efficient administration. To destroy or weaken that unnecessarily by the formation of a national government is unwise and dangerous, for no political deadlock has emerged and no major issue has arisen in regard

962	COMMONS
The War-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
to the conduct of the war which calls for the extreme steps involved in the building of an emergency union of existing political groupings.
The Prime Minister has no mandate to form such a government as is suggested. Indeed, he has a definite mandate against forming such a government; and if the opposition was pressing this request, I know of only one way of meeting it: Let the people decide. Do the people want it? Surely a new election would be unthinkable. Then why try to divide Canada by pretending to unite it? Why throw this apple of discord into our national arena?
My province is unanimously opposed to the proposal. The mere mention of the name "union government" brings forth painful memories which it is almost a crime to resurrect at this time. I speak very frankly. I do not feel that I could sit in such a government if I were asked to do so and represent my province. Frankly I say and I believe, and I think others will believe, that I cannot do it and no other man can either. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that anything which would destroy the unity of our country could be called an act of sabotage? In a democracy the designation of the rulers of those who are to be governed is and must be made by the vote of the people. I beseech the promoters of this scheme-and I know they are anxious that Canada should give its best war effort- to let well enough alone. I implore them not to undermine the confidence of the people in their duly and freely elected rulers.
We are being told that in other nations of the commonwealth, national governments have been formed. Yes, in two of them, Great Britain and New Zealand.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Not New Zealand-
Australia.


Ernest Lapointe: Not
Australia-New Zealand. In Australia the Labour opposition were invited to come into the government and they declined. They accepted to act as a sort of advisory committee. That is what they are in Australia. But in Great Britain and New Zealand, when the war came, there were in power pre-war governments, and instead of the government going to the people and having them ratify the government's war policy, the government formed what was called a union government and dispensed with a general election. In south Africa, far from forming a national government, they dissolved the union that existed between General Smuts and General Hertzog.
I have here something which comes from a part of the commonwealth whose loyalty will certainly not be challenged-Northern Ireland. There on the 25th of June, 1940-and I take

this from the Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, Mr. Beattie moved in the House of Commons the following motion:
That this house views with alarm the continued refusal of the government to cooperate with all parties in the house for the formation of an all-party government for the duration of the war.
Speaking on the motion Lord Craigavon said:
The thought of including members from the other side of the house has occupied my mind for some time, but I believe the government are in a stronger position as they are; and, therefore, if the hon. member who has moved the resolution will accept my word that I have nothing at the back of my mind but the desire to have as strong a government as possible in the present crisis, it covers the whole ground of the motion.
The question was put and negatived.
Later, on the 29th of September, Mr. Warnock moved the following motion:
That in the opinion of this house the government of Northern Ireland as at present constituted is not the most effective instrument for the prosecution of the business of the state, either in relation to the war effort of the country or the ordinary business of good government, and that the welfare and prosperity of Northern Ireland, present and future, would be better secured by a reorganization of the cabinet.
Those are almost the words which we have heard in this country. The Prime Minister, Lord Craigavon, in reply said:
-,that if he thought that any other man could step in with the knowledge he had of the complications across the channel and the difficulties that confronted them, if he thought he could serve Ulster by stepping down he would do so immediately. Mr. Warnock would like to have a general election, because that was tantamount to what his motion came to. It was a very inappropriate time and he doubted very much whether one of those loyalist members who had backed them up for so long would lose his seat.
I, too, doubt very much whether a single one of our members on this side of the house would lose his seat if there were a general election now, as might be compelled by the government acceding to this proposal.
The country has given a mandate to the Prime Minister-not to the editors of some newspapers, important as they may be

to form a government. Public opinion is not opinion that is expressed most loudly by a few. Public opinion is opinion which is socially accepted, reflecting the private views and opinions of the members of the community. Newspapers put forward opinions which are their own, those of the proprietors or editors. They have a perfect right to do so if they are frank about it. But if they say, as some editors are tempted to do, that the opinion of the editor is the public opinion of the country, or of the province, or of the race

The War-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
to which those gentlemen belong, it is a mistake, and should not dominate the policies of any country. Usually it serves a purpose which is not at all the one that they have in view.
There are two classic examples in contemporary times. Take the election campaigns of President Roosevelt, both the last one and the one in 1936. Practically the whole great press of the United States was fighting President Roosevelt. The house knows what the result was. The opinion of the press was certainly not public opinion. The same thing occurred in England not very long ago, when the great newspaper combinations controlled by Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook tried to establish empire free trade. They were very outspoken, even vociferous about it, but their views were not the public opinion of England nor the public opinion of the British dominions. May I quote in that respect the words of an article that I read yesterday-well, yes, I read these things even on Sundays-in the Political Quarterly, an important English publication:
But it can be noted that every time the press conducts a campaign which is pure published opinion, it has the effect of making many people puzzled and suspicious. By tampering with opinion, by regarding public opinion as a vague word which can be raked out to support an editorial argument, the press plays with fire.
The press would be working in its own longterm interests, if it always took its responsibilities to the public 100 per cent seriously and if it asked itself frequently the question to which a preliminary answer has been attempted here: "What is public opinion?" But the deeper question for democracy and far-seeing leadership, and one needing a regular, accurate, objective answer, is "What is private opinion?"
May I speak of one newspaper which is very prominent in this campaign in my own province-the Montreal Gazette? I am a personal friend of the editor of the Gazette and of his representative in the press gallery, and I should not like to say anything that might be unpleasant. But do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the Montreal Gazette represents the opinion, I will not say of the province of Quebec, but of the English-speaking citizens of that province? Not long ago we had a federal election. I took part in that election in the very community in which the Montreal Gazette operates. The Gazette was then advocating national government, as it is to-day. My two dear old friends, Mr. White and Mr. Cahan, both representing strong and traditionally Conservative constituencies, and very good men indeed, were defeated because their election campaigns were engineered by or supported by the Montreal Gazette. The same thing happened in the provincial election a few months ago. It might appear bold on
my part, but I venture to say that I represent the views of the English-speaking electorate of Montreal better than does the Montreal Gazette. When some editors speak on behalf of the people of Canada, it reminds one of the tailors of Tooley street speaking for the people of England.
Is it certain that a union government, if it were formed, would be strong as far as the confidence of the country is concerned? Yes, we had a union government; it carried the country in 1917. I do not want to recriminate or to give any reasons which might lead to a discussion. But as soon as that general election was over, there were byelections throughout Canada, during the whole-term of that union government, and everywhere the government was overwhelmingly defeated. In all the provinces of Canada, except in the case of ministers who, at that time, had to go to the electors after being asked to join the government, the candidate of the union government was defeated. And, mind you, all those constituencies had elected union government supporters in 1917.
In Ontario that happened in Glengarry and Stormont, Ontario North, Peterborough West, Temiskaming. I will not refer at length to Quebec; it is not necessary to do more than call attention to Quebec East, Kamouraska, and the St. James division of Montreal. But in New Brunswick there was Victoria and Carleton where Mr. Carvell, upon being appointed to the board of railway commissioners, was replaced by Mr. Caldwell with a big majority. In Saskatchewan, when Mr. Turriff was appointed to the senate, the union government candidate was defeated. Is this a good record on which to recommend similar government at this time? No, Mr. Speaker.
The internal advance of democracy depends upon giving expression to the will of the people. Nazism and fascism have nothing new in them, because they are merely the old sort of tyranny when a government was seized or set up by a group instead of being selected by the people of the country. Even those who clamour for a national government say that there must be a strong opposition, and -they are right. An opposition is a necessary part of a democratic parliament. It has duties to perform as important as those of the members on the government side. Do any of my hon. friends believe that the joining together of all groups in a government is desirable if it has the necessary effect of further weakening the opposition? I do not. I reiterate my plea to the promoters of this proposal not to persist in an endeavour that will be detrimental to the cause which we alii desire to serve.
964	COMMONS
The War*-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)


Georges Parent: I must remind the right hon. member that his time has expired.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be through in a moment, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members: Go on; go on.


Georges Parent: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Ernest Lapointe: We need unity in Canada, for the carrying out of both our internal and our external affairs, and we may thank Providence that unity exists to a greater degree than it has ever existed in any other period of our history.
I remember meeting Mr. Andre Siegfried, a prominent French writer, a few years ago. He is well known in Canada, having travelled throughout the country, and he has written books on Canada. He told me that he had noticed some divisions in the country, which he said were quite understandable because of its wide area and the differences in race and mentality. He said there was only one *way of uniting Canada and that would be for Canadians to fight for a common cause, to oppose invasion if the country were ever invaded, and to share in the same struggles and the same perils.
I believe, indeed I hope, that the present struggle through which we are passing, the sacrifices in which we are all sharing, may have the effect of welding us into an enduring and stable nationhood. We should learn to be more tolerant of one another as a result of these sacrifices, and we should try to restrain those who have been and are now speaking or writing things which may create friction and may be resented by people in other sections of Canada.
Especially when it comes to creeds and religions, how can a soldier, a loyal worker, go on with his work and continue to make sacrifices if at the same time he reads things that make him feel that in his own country he is an object of suspicions and attacks?
The isolationists in the United States have *had no greater mouthpieces than German agents. Hitler has boasted that he uses honest men and honest opinions in every country to serve his purposes, and those who know what has happened in Holland, Norway, Belgium and France know that this is true. The fifth column rather than armed forces defeated these countries.
I have read a book published a couple of weeks ago by a prominent French writer who now lives in Montreal, M. Andre Cheradame. The book is Defense de l'Amerique, the Defence of America, and I hope it will be translated and distributed throughout the dominion. What has happened in Europe dur-

ing the last few years before the war, and more particularly in France, is described in this book in an illuminating manner. It will open the eyes of many. In France in the last few years, without the people knowing it, newspapers, large and small, were doing the work of the agents of Hitler. This is being done now in south America and in the United States, and it is paid for by our enemies.
I disagree with the leader of the opposition, who the other day criticized the expenditure of the money that is being devoted to the bureau of public information. We are not spending enough on public information. The dissemination of propaganda has been the greatest part of the enemy's activities. The greatest victories achieved by Hitler have come about through the disintegration of morale and opinion in the various countries in which he intended to wage war afterwards. To combat this, it is necessary to spend money. It must be fought by our own bureau of information; and, although the word is not usually popular, we must use propaganda in order to destroy the evil work of the agents of our enemies.
Let us end discussions and contests on small questions and discuss the larger ones. Let us not have our perspective obscured by smaller interests, thus being prevented from seeing the larger interests upon which the safety of the country depends.
Internal weakness brought about the fall of France; there is no doubt about it. We must try, therefore, to strengthen our hands against internal weakness and to do our best, every one of us, to keep our country strong.
I was referring to what was being said. Sometimes extracts from certain writings in my province are translated and published in the English-speaking provinces, and sometimes extracts from newspapers in the English-speaking provinces are translated and published in my own province, just to create trouble and difficulties. But the bad things that are published in the English-speaking provinces, I tell my friends in my province, do not represent the views of the English-speaking electors of Canada; and I ask my good friends from Ontario and the other provinces not to believe that certain things they may read are an expression of the views of patriotic Quebec.
Pestilential microbes and animals do not prevent nature and the world from being a work of beauty. Last week I completed thirty-seven years in this House of Commons, and at the beginning of my thirty-eighth year I pledge myself to employ the years which remain to me in fighting any diabolical conspiracy of malicious, narrow and despicable microbes, whenever and wherever they may be found, in order that they may not defile the work of beauty that is Canada.

The War-Mr. Homuth
Another word and I shall conclude my remarks. I want to say a word of admiration for Britain. We admire Britain; the world admires Britain. We admire the British army, the British air force, the British navy; but, above all, our admiration goes out to the millions of common, long-suffering men, women and children, exposed by their own free choice to mutilation and death, who could end the war by surrender if they brought pressure to bear on their government but who courageously refuse to do so. Mr. Speaker, such a nation is a great nation. Such a nation cannot die. Such a nation cannot lose. To be the associates, to be fellow-citizens in a great commonwealth of such a people is the proudest honour that could come to any country in the world. Yes; in all our activities and our sacrifices for freedom we will endeavour to be worthy of that splendid people and that great nation, and we will not fail her in her hour of trial.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate; but in view of the latitude that is given on the motion to go into committee of supply, I feel that some matters require a little discussion. Since the house adjourned last December, many things have happened which have pretty well changed the complexion of the whole situation in Canada. From one end of the country to the other, newspapers, public gatherings and public speakers apparently have changed their general attitude, so that to-day they are criticizing not only the government's war effort but also many other things the government have done. If those criticisms emanated only from Conservative newspapers or Conservative speakers, one could put them down immediately as political propaganda, but such is not the case. Some of the most vitriolic attacks on the government have come from former friends of the government, from newspapers which a few months ago were very friendly indeed.
I am not, however, particularly concerned about the attitude of the newspapers. During the last election campaign many of them could not say enough partisan things in favour of the government. They have now changed their tone, and to-day from one end of the country to the other the newspapers are demanding national government. Why they have changed their attitude I do not know, nor am I very much concerned about it. But I do resent, with all the strength at my command, the fact that these same public speakers, these same newspapers, these same public gatherings that are belittling the government's attitude and its war effort, turn to the opposition and say, "Oh, they are just as bad as the government."
Let us go back to the start of the war. The leader of the opposition of that time pledged the cooperation of this party to the government. We said that in every possible way we would assist the government in its war effort, and we endeavoured to do so. If we offered any criticism it was not because of what the government was doing but because we did not think it was doing enough. We followed that policy during the last campaign. Weeks went by. Statement after statement was made by members of the ministry. We accepted those statements as facts; we took them as the truth concerning the efforts being made by the government in connection with the war. But as months went by and the truth concerning those efforts came to our attention, we began to realize that a great many of those efforts existed in the minds of the ministers or on paper, and had never come to fruition.
After all, if there is any criticism of the government to-day, it is because they have honestly erred, because they have failed to be frank with the members of this house and take them into their confidence. We promised our cooperation. The government never took advantage of that promise except to read in this house statements that later were shown not to be in accordance with the facts. So I say, if there is criticism of the government, it is purely because they have failed to be frank both with the members of this house and with the people of Canada. Time after time we have listened to radio broadcasts asking the people to face the facts. The people are quite prepared to face the facts if they are told the facts; but if you hide the facts from the people, only one thing can happen: suspicion grows and rumours become so rampant in the country that everyone begins to suspect the sincerity of the government in its war effort. If the government wish to carry on in that way, that is their business. If they refuse to give us the facts that we are entitled to, they must take the responsibility for so doing. As far as we are concerned, however, we resent the attacks that have been made on the opposition, because we promised cooperation with this government. This is the first opportunity we have had to get information from the government, and the position of this opposition is that we are going to get the information regarding our war effort if we have to sit here until Christmas.
Time after time discussions have arisen in this house and ministers have passed it off. At times they have shown a very short temper. Private members have yelled "sabotage" and other words because we dared to criticize the government. Those things are not going to frighten the members of the opposition; we are going to play our part in this war. The cooperation we have promised has been
The War-Mr. Homuth

studiously ignored by the government; now we are going to play our part. We have as much at stake in this war as they have; our children, everything we own is at stake as well as that of the members of the government. From now on we are going to play our part, just as big a part as the government, and we are going to force the government to give us the information they have repeatedly denied us. It is the lack of frankness on the part of the government that has brought so much criticism down upon their heads, criticism that is in some measure well deserved.
The people of Canada are not expecting members of the government to be supermen; they are not looking for supermen in the House of Commons; they know we are all human. We represent certain ideals, certain policies; but there is not a man in this house who is not concerned to-day about one thing, namely the carrying on of this war to a successful conclusion. If the government, instead of concealing the mistakes they have made, would be honest with the people of Canada, admit they have made mistakes and have as far as possible rectified them, and are carrying on to the full extent of their ability, how much more confidence the people would have in the government. Mistakes have been made; no matter what government was in power, mistakes would be made; but at least let them take the people of the country into their confidence, admit these mistakes, and then the people would feel that at least we have on the government benches men who are trying to do their part.
I have said this on the floor of the house before. I ran as a national government candidate; I believe in it; I still believe in it. But the Liberals were elected; very well, that is the voice of the people. If the Liberals are going to carry on as a Liberal government, let them do so; I have no objection to it. But what we are asking them to do is to carry on this war and fight it, whether they be Liberals, national government, or whatever it may be.
On several occasions we have criticized members of the government because of things we knew were happening in the administration of their departments, particularly in relation to the war effort. Statements have been made by the ministers, statements which we find to-day were not according to facts. The ministers may have thought that what *they stated might happen, but thinking is not good enough when even the shores of Canada are menaced. As a result of the attitude of the government, the only thing we can do is to bring publicly to their attention and to the attention of the people of
!Mr. Homuth.1
this country the facts, so that perhaps they in turn can stir the government and bring out the true facts of the situation as far as our war effort is concerned.
Let us go back to the statement made by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that the war policies of the government were submitted to the people last March. I take 'issue with him on that. Who can forget the first broadcast that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made then; he did not speak of national government except to associate it with the union government of the last war, and in a very subtle way, as only the Prime Minister of Canada knows how to do; he raised the bogy of conscription. He raised that bogy in his first speech. No one can deny that one of the biggest issues in that election was the issue of conscription.
Then the government was reelected to power with an overwhelming majority, and to-day we have conscription. To-day conscription is the law of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Modify it as you like, but let us face the facts. Let us have some courage in this matter. We never question the courage of the men in our air force or army or navy, but we expect courage also from the men back home, and particularly from the men who are sitting in this House of Commons; courage to face the facts, courage to do those things that they think are right, and we expect them to direct Canada's utmost efforts to the winning of this war. If the members of the government, and if the private members of the government party-because, after all, they are a force to contend with-show the courage they ought to show, there will be no difficulty as far as an all-out effort in this war is concerned.
Last fall we met here and time after time we questioned the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) as to the production of Bren guns. They either gave an evasive answer, or refused to answer, or sa/id that which did not satisfy the opposition.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will permit me, the answer I gave him was that I did not consider it in the public interest to make public the number of Bren guns being produced, but I did give to his leader, as I did to the leaders of the other groups in the house, an exact statement of the number produced.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The Minister of National Defence made a statement that we were

The War-Mr. Homuth
producing ahead of schedule. I disputed that statement; I dispute it now; I am not going into the details now, but I dispute it. I dispute it because of evidence that certain members of the government who acted as counsel for the government before the public accounts committee tried to bring out before that committee. But what I am getting at is that while we were discussing this question and questions were being asked of this government, at the same time the contract was being revamped, a new contract was being made, and no member of -the government, not even the Prime Minister, was frank enough with hon. members to state that they were making a new Bren gun contract.
Are we simply pawns in this game? Have we no place in this house? Have we no responsibility?


James Layton Ralston: Will my h-on. friend permit me again? I do not know where my hon. friend gets his facts; I understand that the new Bren gun contract was made in November of this year.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It iwas made in October.


Clarence Decatur Howe: November 29 is the date of the contract.


James Layton Ralston: And I think this house was sitting in July.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The house was sitting in November and December.


James Layton Ralston: I was not giving my hon. friend information with -regard to Bren guns.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am talking not about the minister, but about the ministers generally; one is as much -to blame as another. The contract was dated October 31; I have a copy here. I am not complaining about it. Every hon. member who knows what a terrible contract the first one was, is pleased to -think that a new contract was made. But when the new contract was made, the former Minister -of National Defence, who was Minister of National Defence when the former contract was negotiated, made a statement to the press. This information was not given to the members of -the house in spite of -the fact that the Bren gun contract and Bren gun production had been mentioned many times. This contract was negotiated and signed while the house was in session.
Then the newspapers broke the story in January. After the story had broken, the former Minister of National Defence gave a statement to the papers to the effect that the old Bren gun contract had been cancelled. The present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who was Minister
of National Defence at the time the old contract was negotiated, promptly issued a statement denying pointblank that the new contract was a termination of the old. On the contrary, he declared, the government was so pleased with the results of the old contract, that the new contract was a tremendous enlargement of the old arrangement.
That is not the fact. There is practically no similarity between the old contract and the new. The second clause of the new contract for Bren guns negotiated between the government of Canada and the John Inglis company provided for a .price and conditions which will prove a tremendous saving to the Canadian government. Further along in the contract it is shown where all the profits accruing to the John Inglis company must be turned back to the government. The contract was different from its very inception. Instead of retaining the tremendous profits they would have earned under the old contract, the John Inglis -company is now to be paid a fee for the production of Bren guns. This will mean a tremendous saving to this country.
I mention this not because I and every hon. member of this house are not pleased with the new contract; I am simply drawing attention to the lack of frankness on the part of the government. The government have refused to take the members of the opposition into their confidence. They have refused to trust us with matters that should be made public. If they would change their tactics, they would not only enhance their position, they would increase the confidence of the people of Canada in the government. I could go on to recite promise after promise which have been made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply to produce various things, and which have not been fulfilled.
What is wrong with Federal Aircraft? I do not know, and apparently the members of the government do not know. One has only to read the report of a speech delivered by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) before the lumbermen's convention in Montreal, where he is reported to have said:
In some training schools three advanced training planes were doing the work of four because there had been delays in the Canadian production of these planes.
"Unfortunately, I don't know why it has not been possible to produce these planes on schedule and I am not in a position to judge the delays," he said. But one exasperated officer had told him the other day: "There are some manufacturers who are either damn fools or damn liars."
Apparently he does not know, but some officer places the responsibility upon the manu-
The War-Mr. Homuth

facturers of this country. Surely the time has come when the house should be taken into the confidence of the government. In view of the feeling which prevails across the country with regard to Federal Aircraft, one of the first things to which this house was entitled was a statement from the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of National Defence for Air explaining fully what was wrong with the aircraft production of this country and showing how plans had been made to see that the production promised by the minister was accomplished.
Yesterday the people of Canada had the opportunity of listening to Lord Beaverbrook. His was a speech that inspired every one who heard it, but it was a speech which placed upon us certain responsibilities and which showed us where our responsibility lay. He referred to the northwest passage and mentioned the danger that lay in that direction. He spoke of the protection of these islands and what was needed. He referred to the ships that were required in order to replace the tonnage that had been and would be lost. In other words, he referred to the submarine warfare.
In November of last year this government gave a contract to the Midland shipbuilding yards for the building of submarine chasers. What happened? A certain type of hardwood timber was needed for the bottoms of those submarine chasers. I do not know whether this was a cost-plus contract, but from the manoeuvring that has been going on I would say that it is. The contract for those timbers was given to a dealer in Toronto, but not a man who owned a mill. They did not go to the big sawmills of this country, or even to the small sawmills, to obtain the timber; they went to this dealer in Toronto. That dealer went to another dealer to get the timbers. That dealer in turn went to a man in my riding who was a milk peddler two years ago. He was asked to produce the timbers so he went out and bought a hardwood bush and hauled the logs into Preston, my own home town, and had them sawn into timbers to be used in building the submarine chasers in Midland. Half the logs were too small and would not produce timber of a sufficient size, so it was rejected. If my information is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, they still have not sufficient timber to lay the first submarine chaser frame in Midland. If there is no supervision of these contracts, and if they are cost-plus contracts, then I can understand how such things can happen.
To-day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) told us how the people had responded to the war savings certificates campaign. I can tell

the house how pleased we were in the riding of Waterloo South at the response which has been made. In that riding the people bettered their quota. They subscribed to this campaign because they are anxious to do something to help win this war. They feel that this is the one way in which they can help. While the minister is appealing to the people of Canada to pull in their belts, to save their money and to do without many of the things which they have been doing without for years and which they thought they might have an opportunity of having, a contract like this is let.
The thing is passed from pillar to post. Do hon. members think the first dealer was going to carry out his part for nothing? Do hon. members think the second dealer was going to act for nothing? Do hon. members think the third dealer was going to work for nothing? One of the main troubles in the whole set-up of our war effort is the fact that so many of these contracts have been sublet and profits have accrued to those who sublet contracts without their being earned.
We are in this war. We members of the opposition are just as enthusiastic as any other members of this house or as any other group of men or women in this country. We are willing to help this government. We want to do everything we possibly can to help the government in their war effort. But we ask them to be frank with us. We ask them to be honest with us. We ask them to be big enough to admit their mistakes and to shov us that they are rectifying them. If they will do that, they need have no fear at all as to the response the people of Canada will make.
The people of Canada can take it. They have taken it before. There are not many homes in this country which did not suffer as a result of the last war. Before this war is over, there will be very few homes which will not have loved ones in the fight. We are all in it as far as we can go. If we cannot have a national government, if we are going to continue to have a Liberal government, let us at least have a fighting government that will make an all-out effort to carry our cause to victory. We are willing to cooperate with the government and to play the game, but we do ask the government to be honest with us and tell us frankly the things they should have told us a long time ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, and I wish to say at once that a debate on external affairs is not an appropriate occasion to raise the matters referred to by the last speaker (Mr. Homuth).

The War-Mr. Howe


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
motion is to go into supply, and on such a motion one may discuss anything.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I had intended to speak at the first opportunity when the war appropriation bill came up for discussion, and I still intend to do so. I shall then discuss fully the production of aircraft in this country and expose the outrageous campaign that is being waged against Federal Aircraft. Never before in my experience as a citizen of Canada have I seen such a deliberate campaign of misrepresentation with regard to a situation which has been reported on by the highest authorities in the industry, whose reports I intend to lay before the house regardless of the fact that in doing so I shall have to give a frank statement of production figures. While it is against the policy of the government to divulge these figures, a situation has developed that, I believe, warrants me in giving the figures, as far as aircraft are concerned. I do not intend to waste time this evening on the situation discussed by my hon. friend, except to say one word regarding the purchase of timber for mine sweepers at Midland.
These contracts are let as a lump-sum contract, a firm contract. The price is established after studying costs in all parts of Canada, and all builders of mine sweepers accept the same price. It is quite obvious that if what my hon. friend the member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) says is true, the operators of the Midland yard have not his great capacity and buying skill, because he could buy the timber very much better. That is their misfortune, and the loss must come out of their pockets. I think, however, that transaction, running into a few hundred dollars, is hardly worth wasting more of the time of the house in discussing.
What I wish to discuss to-night is the Bren gun contract. The position of the Bren gun contract is just this. Before the war, the government decided that it was in the interests of defence to establish the production of Bren guns in this country. I shall not go into the background of the contract. A contract was entered into with the John Inglis company for the production of 12,000 Bren guns, 7,000 for the account of the Dominion of Canada, and 5,000 for the account of Great Britain. Production was to be at the rate of roughly 5,000 guns a year.
That contract became a great political issue. I was not associated with the war department at that time; but having had considerable experience with contracts, I made a study of the Inglis contract, and took it upon myself to rise in the house to speak in defence of it. In my opinion, as I expressed it at the time,
it was an eminently fair contract, and I have had no reason whatever to change that opinion.
Bren gun production proceeded according to contract. The result was that when a large demand for guns arose as the war proceeded, the Inglis plant had developed a technique for the manufacture of automatic guns which gave it a particular standing in this field. A great demand for automatic guns developed in both Canada and Britain, and increased numbers of Bren guns were required. Canada was the only country outside the British isles that was producing Bren guns, and I must say, in spite of the eulogies we have heard of production in Australia to-day, that that is just as true to-day as it has been at any time since the war started.
We were called on by Great Britain to increase our production of Bren guns for British account, and by our own defence department to increase our supply of Bren guns for Canadian account. In addition, we were asked to undertake the production of other types of automatic guns, the Colt-Browning aircraft gun, the Browning tank gun, the Boys anti-tank gun-all automatic guns, the technique of building which was the same as had been developed by the Inglis company in the manufacture of Bren guns.
True, we have placed contracts for automatic guns with other firms, but in every case we were faced with the position that the Inglis company had the technique which they had perfected in building automatic guns. They had the trained staff necessary to carry on the work, and they could get into production of a new type of automatic gun from six to eight months sooner than any other firm which had to start from the beginning. What has been the result? Instead of a production of 5,000 Bren guns per annum as contemplated in the first contract, we have to-day a production under contract with the Inglis plant of 97,500 guns per annum.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister say whether that is what the contract calls for, or whether that is the production- 97,000? Surely the minister does not mean that. You do not mean you are producing 97,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that the Inglis company had contracts for that amount. I said that the first contract called for 5,000 guns per annum, and the present contract calls in total for 97,500 guns per annum.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not 9,700?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, nineteen and a half times as much as the original contract, which is 97,500 guns per annum.



The War-Mr. Howe
What is the position of the first contract? The first contract was to be carried out in the plant owned by the John Inglis company. It is true the government was to furnish certain machinery which would remain the property of the government; nevertheless in the first contract the Inglis company contributed the plant. As time went on the situation changed and the Inglis company was not disposed to furnish the plant for the balance of this work. The result was that we began to build plants, government property owned by the government, to be operated by the Inglis company!


John Ritchie MacNicol: Adjacent to the Inglis
plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nearby on other property,
which was owned at that time by the Canadian National Railways. We built one other plant on the Inglis property itself, and we are building very large plants adjacent to it, across the railroad tracks on property owned by the crown in the name of the Canadian National Railways. Those plants we own lock, stock and barrel. The layout was made by the Inglis company, and the Inglis company designed and supervised the construction of those plants. Would any hon. member suggest that an expansion such as that would be covered by a contractual relation entered into for the production of 5,000 guns per annum? I wonder what would have been the attitude of the opposition had we carried on the original contract to cover changed circumstances such as that. Obviously, what was required for the new operation was a management-type contract, a contract such as we have also in a great many places where the government builds what is in fact a government arsenal and enters into a contract with a private firm to exercise its skill and managing ability in operating that plant for the government.
The result is that we entered into a contract with the Inglis company for the new work, as was always contemplated and always understood, on a management fee basis, that is, a fee representing about three per cent of the cost of the equipment to be produced in those government arsenals. What did we find as time went on? We had the great bulk of the work of the Inglis company under a management fee basis, and the original plant under the original contract, and obviously it was very difficult for government accountants to separate the two contracts. The work was going on in one plant under one contract, and in another building, under a separate contract. Material was coming in from the outside and being used, some in one plant and some in the other. Under the circum-

stances it seemed common sense to make a blanket contract to include all the Inglis operation and to level off on one contractual relation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You
made a new contract and wiped the other one out, and I think you did right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why did you not tell
the house, then?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will explain that.


Mr. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: How much money did the government have in the Inglis company before the contract was taken over?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us not worry about that. No expenditure was made without an order in council and a memorandum of agreement. Well, we have reached this point: the leader of the opposition says that we were right in making the contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A new contract.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about the terms of the new contract? We said, "We want to get something definite in this. We know what your guns are costing. We know what Bren guns are being purchased for in the United States. We have a fair idea of what a reasonable cost for Bren guns is. We will figure out three per cent of that cost, based on the United States price, and we will fix the profit, not as percentage of the cost of producing Bren guns, but as so many dollars per gun, representing three per cent of what we believe to be a fair price. If you can turn out guns faster than the contract, that suits us very well, and you will make more money. If you can cheapen the cost, as we believe and hope you can, you will obtain perhaps a little more than three per cent, but certainly not more than four per cent." There was more profit advantage to the company in cutting the cost of the gun. I doubt if any man will read the Bren gun contract as now drawn and say that it is not a good one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nobody
has criticized the present contract. What we do criticize is the secrecy which surrounded the whole matter while the house was in session.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am just coming to that.


Mr. McGREGOR:: What is the price per gun?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend sit down? This is not a committee. We have agreed

The War-Mr. Howe
that a contract must be drawn, that we must have a new contract. And we agree that an equitable contract has been drawn. That seems to be settled.
What about the manner of announcement? I suppose that in the Department of Munitions and Supply we draw at least three thousand contracts a month. Many of them run into, very large figures. It is done as a matter of routine. We have a large staff of solicitors that do that work. So far as I can remember, no contract has ever been announced in this house or to the press. I have never known it to be done. We have arrangements so that automatically, when a contract is awarded, an announcement is made; and if my hon. friends opposite will check back through the books which we distribute every month, and press notices which have been made from time to time in our department, they will find that every addition to the Bren gun plant, every new type of production, and the value of every contract, have been announced. That is all we do in the ordinary routine, and there was no reason why we should depart from it.
It is true that this was a large contract, but w'e have entered into a good many larger contracts. It was handled in exactly the way in which all contracts are handled in the Department of Munitions and Supply. Surely my hon. friends would not suggest that we publish the details of every contract we make. In the first place, no newspaper would print it. The press would get tired of it after a while. In the second place, it is not desirable, in dealing with private firms, to publish the details of contracts. The information can be of use only to the competitors of the firms in an attempt to "scrooge out" a better deal with the department for a similar type of product. So we do not make any public statement. How did this get published? I will tell my hon. friends that. They may as well have the whole story.
As some of you may have read in the press, I went to England.


An hon. MEMBER:: With difficulty.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A day or two after I left Canada, and before, I may say, the acting minister had really got his feet on the floor in my office, a reporter came in with a letter written by, I believe, Mr. Clifford Sifton to his Ottawa correspondent. It contained some rather extraordinary statements about what he understood to be the new Bren gun contract. My secretary, although I think he is as capable a private secretary as there is in Ottawa, used, I must say, exceedingly bad judgment on that occasion.
14873-62J


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not put it on him. That is hardly cricket.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nobody else to blame, because, as I think he would tell you, he did it all himself. It became a matter of public interest when a newspaper asked for it. Instead, however, of making a press statement on it, he prepared a statement which he handed only to the reporter in question. The result was that, instead of the statement being distributed to all the press of Canada, it appeared in only two Canadian newspapers- which naturally annoyed the rest of the press. Those are the facts. That is not according to the routine of the department; it is one of those things which happen, and which I do not think anyone can explain, but I am taking the house into my confidence and telling them exactly what occurred.
So much for the announcement. We now come to the question of the effect of the comment. In the John Inglis company we have the largest plant in the British empire for the manufacture of automatic guns. I am not certain that it is not the largest in the world; I know of none larger. This plant has come on amazingly. A great many hon. members have been through it. I doubt whether anywhere in the British empire there is a more efficient operation in the manufacture of any type of gun. What has been the effect of the comment? I have a file from the John Inglis company themselves, showing the effect it has had on the morale of their works, on loss of production, and on the disturbance of their staff.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On the disturbance of the morale of their operating staff; that is, their foremen and superintendents.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	Is	the
minister speaking of the cost? I did not catch what he said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am saying what has been the effect of the propaganda that went out, of that action by the	press.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	Of	the
announcement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The attack that was made. It was not the announcement. The announcement stated the facts. Here are some of the headlines:
Drew states millions to be saved for public by Bren contract veto.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	That is
probably true.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Millions?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably.
The War-Mr. Howe


Clarence Decatur Howe: The original contract was for 12,000 guns. It would be hard to make millions out of that. Another:
Says government taking over war production in John Inglis plant vindicates him-
George Drew. Mark that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It did not vindicate the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I doubt if it vindicated George Drew.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a matter of opinion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose it is; yes. To continue:
Which would otherwise have gone to a group of ambitious promoters who saw an opportunity to capitalize upon Canada's need for weapons.
We have a fine lot of statements there. I doubt if anyone would suggest that, while the brief I have before me may tend to exaggerate the harmful effects, such talk could be helpful to the production of the Inglis plant. What is the object of this sort of talk? What is behind it? Nothing but political kudos. My hon. friend rises in his place on a motion to go into supply on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and talks politics about the Bren gun contract. Is that statesmanship? He says that so far as he is concerned the opposition will do its duty.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Do yours.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am doing it. I am trying to protect the war production of this country. I am trying to stop attacks upon Bren gun production, and I am exposing the type of situation that we have so far as this discussion is concerned.
I do not know that I am called upon at this time to say anything further, but I do hope to take occasion in the next debate to discuss fully the aeroplane production situation in this country and to deal with some other phases of the war work. It seems to me unfortunate that statements are going unchallenged for the reason that no one has a chance to answer them at the time they are made. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) makes a statement attacking production of aeroplanes in this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not. I asked the minister to make a statement explaining the lack of production.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; but he gave a press release which was the most extraordinary and misleading document ever produced in or out of this house and which I intend to deal

with fully at the next opportunity. I do conceive it to be my duty to try to stop these malicious attacks on the John Inglis company in consequence of their contractual relations with this government, and I sincerely hope that these remarks of mine will have that effect.


Mr. BROOKS:: I wanted to ask the minister a question for information. In that 97,000 Bren guns-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say Bren guns. I said automatic guns.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are there any included for the British government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many are being manufactured for the British government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would say about two-thirds for the British government and one-third, Canadian.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the increase in Bren gun production?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is not committee. My hon. friend will have an opportunity to ask these questions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not wish to embarrass the minister. I was asking for information.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I wish to speak for only a moment or two, and perhaps this is an appropriate time to try to pour a little oil on troubled waters. May I get back again to what I thought was the subject before us, external affairs.
Some months ago I suggested that it would be well for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government to consider the appointment of an overseas Minister of National Defence. I do not hope to make any great impression on the Prime Minister's mind by anything that I may say, but I would call his attention to a statement made when the Minister of Overseas Military Forces, as I believe he was called at that time, was appointed in 1916. The powers of the minister were defined by the Prime Minister and are condensed in the Canadian annual review as follows:
1.	He was charged with the control of and was responsible for the administration of the affairs of the military forces of Canada in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe; the ordnance, arms, ammunition, armouries, stores, munitions and habiliments of war belonging to Canada in those countries; all expenditure incurred in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe for or in respect of these forces.
2.	He was given power in urgent matters to act provisionallv without reference to the Canadian government.

The War-Mr. Bruce
3.	He was charged with the negotiations on the part of the government of Canada with his majesty's government, in all matters connected with the government, command and disposition of the overseas forces of Canada and arrangements for coordinating their operations and services with those of his majesty's troops.
4.	He was given power to appoint and pay the necessary officers and clerks and to create an advisory council.
I submit that if a minister, having these powers vested in him, were sent overseas, he would relieve the government here, and particularly the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), of a great deal of routine work and would enable him to carry on more effectively the work for which he is responsible in Canada.
With reference to what the Prime Minister has said about the duty which is now being performed by the Canadian high commissioner, I share his admiration for the excellent qualities of Mr. Vincent Massey, who, in my opinion, is doing a splendid job in England; and I should like to refer to something which perhaps does not appeal to the Prime Minister as much as it does to me, for the reason that, from his habits of life, he is not so well acquainted with the matter. I refer to the excellent work that Mrs. Massey is doing in war services in England. I think, therefore, we are very fortunate in the occupant of that post, and in the fact that his wife is so capable of carrying on the many duties which now are imposed upon her.
In 1916, Sir George Perley was acting high commissioner in England. The government of Sir Robert Borden must have thought it would be an advantage to have an overseas minister who was a member of the Canadian cabinet, who could take certain responsibilities on the spot and act promptly, because he asked Sir George Perley if he would assume that duty. So in October of 1916 Sir George was appointed Minister of Overseas Military Forces for Canada, in which capacity he carried on for one year. I think during that time someone else acted as high commissioner, but at any rate Sir George gave up his new position only when another appointment was made and Sir Edward Kemp became overseas minister, after which Sir George resumed his post as high commissioner. I am quite sure that if Mr. Vincent Massey were a member of the cabinet, he would be able to carry out these duties admirably, although I presume he could not aot as overseas minister without being a member of the cabinet.
I do not wish to elaborate further on that subject. In conclusion, I should like to quote a statement made by the younger Pitt on
July 22, 1803. At that time, as hon. members will remember, England was at war with France; and if you substitute the name Hitler for that of Bonaparte, and Germany for France, you will see the striking way in which this statement applies to what is going on to-day.
I am certainly not denying that the enemy would find great difficulty and danger in transporting his army to this country, but it is by running desperate risks that he can alone hope for success. We may have a proud navy of ships of the line and frigates. . . . But I can conceive a case in which ships of that kind would not be sufficient to meet an innumerable flotilla of boats issuing from all the ports, harbours, and creeks on the opposite coast of France, and covering the channel for sevenal miles in length. . . . Englishmen must look to this as a species of contest from which, by the extraordinary favour of divine Providence, we have been for a long series of years exempted. We ought to have a due sense of the magnitude of the danger with which we are threatened; we ought to meet it in that temper of mind which produces just confidence, which neither despises nor dreads the enemy; and while on the one hand we accurately estimate the dangers with which we are threatened at this awful crisis, we must recollect on the other hand what it is we have at stake, what it is we have to contend for. It is for our property, it is for our liberty, it is for our independence, nay, for our existence as a nation, it is for our character, it is for our very name as Englishmen, it is for everything dear and valuable to man on this side of the grave.
Parliament has now provided ample means for our defence; it remains for the executive government to employ them to the best advantage ... If government showed the same determination to apply all those means that parliament has shown in providing them; if the people follow up the example which the legislature has set them, we are safe. Then I may say, without being too sanguine, that the result of this great contest will ensure the permanent security, the eternal glory of this country; that it will terminate in the confusion, the dismay, and the shame of our vaunting enemy; that it will afford the means of animating the spirits, of rousing the courage, of breaking the lethargy, of the surrounding nations of Europe; and I trust if a fugitive French army should reach its own shores after being driven from our coasts, it will find the people of Europe reviving in spirits, and anxious to retaliate upon France all the wrongs, all the oppressions, they have suffered from her; and that we shall at length see that wicked fabric destroyed which was raised upon the prostitution of liberty, which has caused more miseries, more horrors to France and to the surrounding nations, than are to be paralleled in any part of the annals of mankind.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of his speech this evening the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) informed us that the view had been expressed that we should change the complexion of the government. That was not news. That view has been expressed on many occasions, and apparently it is gaining support. Evidently that opinion is causing some
:974
The War-Mr Hazen

concern to the Minister of Justice and some other members of the government; for the minister devoted the greater part of a speech lasting almost an hour to reasons why we should not have a non-party, a union or a national government in this country to-day. His chief argument was not new; the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) advanced the same argument here some months ago, that the Liberal party was returned to power by a large majority in March of last year.


Mr. GRANT:: He was right.


Douglas King Hazen: He was correct in that
statement, but he failed to take account of the fact that the whole face of the world has been changed since last March and that the people of this country face sacrifices and responsibilities they never believed they would have to face when that election was held.
On a number of occasions it has been pointed out in this house that party government is having a bad effect on our war effort. It has been stated that under the party form of government it has been impossible to control the political machine, to keep in check strong partisan party followers, and that, in consequence, political patronage, political pull and political favouritism continue. As a result, in many parts of this country to-day there is dissatisfaction and ill-feeling instead of confidence and unity.
A glaring example of political patronage and partisanship may be found in the manner in which the government proposes to conduct the census this year, at a cost of $2,800,000. This undertaking is not to be conducted on a non-partisan basis. The workers employed to take that census, the men and women, will be employed on the recommendation of supporters of the government and of defeated candidates in the last election.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: In what riding?


Douglas King Hazen: This policy cannot be
justified in war time, and I would ask the government to reconsider any decision of that kind.
It is, however, not of the internal affairs of party government that I want to speak to-night, but rather of one phase of its external affairs which has been forcibly brought to my attention by a letter which I have just received, which leads me to the conclusion that party government, in one respect at least, is having a bad effect outside Canada.
This letter came from an active official in one of the largest and best known associations of young women in the United States, and

had enclosed in it a clipping from one of
New York's influential papers. That clipping, which was dated Ottawa, February 15, contained a report of the criticism of the government's efforts that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made in this house on Wednesday last. It was too brief an account to give a fair and accurate report of the able address made by the leader of the opposition on that occasion, but the reading of it by a citizen of the United States who did not know what was going on in this country would lead to the conclusion that Canada's war effort was futile and based solely on political expediency. We all know that such a conclusion is wrong, although there have been some cases perhaps of futility and more than one case of political partisanship.
The writer of this letter took exception to criticism of this kind appearing in the public press of the United States at a time when the friends of Britain in the United States were doing what they could to explain the need for and the importance of passing by the senate of the United States of the lease-lend bill No. 1776 that is now engaging its attention.
The writer said, and I think her words are put in rather diplomatic form:
We are all doing what we can to contribute to the information which each individual here seeks to help him make up his own mind about the wisdom of the bill. The kind of sacrifice which Canada, a sovereign country, is making voluntarily for Great Britain is of great interest to everyone.
It was apparent from the letter that dispatches of this kind were hindering the efforts of our friends in the United States to further our cause there.
The policy of the opposition party, as stated by the leader of the opposition a number of months ago, is to give every possible support to the government in its war effort, reserving to itself the right of criticism. That policy the opposition party has followed consistently, according to its lights. Last May the Prime Minister, in the course of a speech in this house, said that the government expected criticism from the opposition.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Constructive criticism.


Douglas King Hazen: Criticism is one of the duties of the opposition. But a result of criticism under the party system, and that criticism being published abroad, is to harm the efforts of our friends in the United States who are working on our behalf-and I might say on their own behalf-and some aid is furnished to those who are attacking bill No. 1776 in the United States senate. This is something which should, if possible, be avoided. It seems to

Supply-External Affairs
me that this is another reason, and an important one, why we should have in this country some form of national or union government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does the hon. member want another election?


Douglas King Hazen: In this house and in this country we are united in our determination to bring this war to a victorious conclusion, and we should show a united front to the world in the form of a government which is representative of all parties in this house.


Georges Parent: Is the house ready for the question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have, I think, the right to close the debate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The right hon. gentleman did not open the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; the minister opened the debate by making the motion. The Prime Minister has already spoken. I have no objection to his speaking, but if we are to have order for one, we must have it for another.
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Reid in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERN At AFFAIRS
SS. Departmental administration, $220,800.


Howard Charles Green: Would the Prime Minister explain what steps have been taken by the government to assist Canadian citizens who may have been caught on the continent of Europe or who are at present in China or Japan or countries in the orient where there may be trouble?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In respect to citizens of Canada who are on the continent of Europe, we have in London at the present time, in addition to the high commissioner and officials of the high commissioner's office, our diplomatic representation which was formerly sent to France and to Holland and to Belgium. The charge d'affaires of the former legations has taken such steps as he has found possible to get particulars of Canadian citizens who are in different parts of Europe, and to make representations in such ways as are possible to secure their exit to Canada or to London from the country in which they may be at the present time. We are endeavouring also to supply them with such financial assistance .as they may require where that is essential toward securing their maintenance and exit.
The situation differs in different countries. As my hon. friend knows, of Canadian citizens who were in France, some are in the occupied
area and some in the unoccupied area. No Canadian nationals have been interned in nonoccupied France and arrangements are being made to provide facilities for the repatriation to Canada of individuals who desire to leave non-occupied France. Some difficulty has been encountered in securing exit permits. The chief difficulties are in securing transportation and permission to cross Spain. The number affected is, however, very small. The United States authorities in France, occupied and nonoccupied, have been authorized to pay up to a maximum of $45 United States funds a month to Canadian nationals, depending upon their needs. No one may secure more, no matter how much his holdings in Canada may be. Recipients are required to sign receipts and pay the moneys advanced out of their accounts in Canada. In case of necessity the necessary funds are advanced if the recipient or his or her family is not financially able to provide for reimbursement. Approximately 60 individuals or families are affected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the government any knowledge of any Canadian nationals being interned in occupied France?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Canadian
nationals, as well as other British subjects of military age who remained in German occupied France after the French collapse were interned by the German authorities. Approximately ninety men who are Canadian nationals have been interned near Paris. The next of kin have been informed so far as possible. By decree of December 5 the German authorities extended the internment order to include women and children who are British subjects, alleging that this action was taken in retaliation for the action of the British authorities in interning German women and children in England. The total number of British subjects so interned is approximately 3,000. They are interned at Caserne Yauban, not far from the Swiss border. We have not been able to ascertain how many Canadian women and children are included. The United States authorities who are looking after Canadian interests in France state that it is expected that the names of any Canadian women and children who have been interned will be notified to them, as the protecting power.
So far as Asia is concerned, some months ago the government notified Canadian nationals in Japan that it would be the part of wisdom for them to secure passage home. We were not at all certain that their leaving the country was imperative, but conditions were such as caused the government to feel it was advisable to make sure that as many as possible did leave Japan at as early a time
Supply-External Affairs

as possible, having regard to the time at which the notice was given to them. I have particulars with regard to the situation there.
Owing to the increased tension in the far east, continuous attention has been given to the problem affecting Canadian nationals in the event of the development of a serious crisis. As early as October, 1940, the Canadian legation in Tokyo was instructed to advise women, and children and others whose presence was not absolutely essential to leave as soon as possible. A further warning was issued on October 25. At that time it was suggested that all Canadians should consider the advisability of arranging for their early repatriation. A third warning was issued on February 6, 1941. Of the 543 Canadians known to be in the far east in August, 1940, exclusive of the legation staff at Tokyo and Japanese Canadians, a certain number have moved to safer areas. Approximately 200 have returned to Canada, and it is estimated that some 177 have remained in what might be considered the danger zone. I understand that most of the number that are remaining belong to religious orders. They have felt that they ought to stay at their posts regardless of what the situation might be.


Howard Charles Green: As yet no minister to Japan has been appointed, although the post has been vacant for some years. It does seem peculiar that an appointment has not been made. Will the Prime Minister explain to the committee the reason for this and will he state whether it is expected that an appointment will be made shortly?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are fortunate in having as charge d'affaires at Tokyo an exceptionally able member of the diplomatic service, Mr. McGreer. He has had experience in the legations at Paris and Washington, and in the department at Ottawa. He is one of the career men and is well qualified to fill the post of charge d'affaires. He served under the former minister at Tokyo. From time to time the government has had different persons under consideration for this particular post.
I may say that, since the war, there has been a great demand for persons who are prepared to give outstanding service in the different branches of the public service. Some of those who have been considered for the position of minister to Japan have taken on other work which they considered more urgent.
I might cite a particular case. I had in view the appointment of General Odium as minister from Canada to Tokyo. General Odium has taken an interest in oriental questions and is particularly well informed on the situation in British Columbia. I thought I had succeeded in having him accept that 
appointment. As, however, the committee knows, General Odium has been appointed to command the second division overseas.
Other names have been considered, but special circumstances have made it difficult to secure the person who the government felt was most desirable for this position in Japan. We would wish to have someone with special qualifications. Just at this particular time it has not been possible to secure the person we would wish to have, all circumstances considered. If there had been any reason to assume that Canada's interests and the interests of our nationals who are in Japan were not being carefully looked after by the legation staff at the present time, some further appointment certainly would have been made. But we have every reason to feel that the interests of Canadian nationals and the interests of the government in relation to Japan are being carefully cared for at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would be a matter of public interest, I think, if, following up the discussion in respect of Canadian nationals, the Prime Minister would be good enough to tell us if he knows the number of Canadian nationals in Germany, Norway and in the low countries, so that we may get a true picture of just what the situation is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose they are in with the British.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I could not hear the Prime Minister's reply. Am I right in understanding that there are international regulations governing the treatment accorded to prisoners of war, and are there similar regulations governing the treatment to be accorded to Canadians who might be in Germany or in German-occupied countries? If so, has the Prime Minister any information as to the treatment that has been accorded to Canadians who are still in German-occupied territory?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite right in assuming that the treatment accorded to prisoners of war is subject to international convention. We in Canada are taking care to see that Germans who are interned here are treated properly, and we hope that Canadians who are interned in the countries of Europe are being similarly treated. If we had reason to believe that they were not being treated in accordance with international usage, every effort would be put forth to see that proper representations were made and the situation corrected so far as that was possible.

Supply-External Affairs


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is provision in the convention, as I recall it, for a periodical inspection to be made of the internment camps in Britain, we will say, or Canada, by a representative of the other belligerents, and we have the same right to make a periodical inspection of our nationals who are internees or prisoners of war in Germany or German-occupied territory. Has Canada taken any steps to see that the terms of the convention are being carried out by Germany, or is that left to the British government or the government of the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The work of supervision in that respect is carried out for Canada by United States representatives, and we get reports from them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a complete answer.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: May I ask if appointments have been made of ambassadors to Brazil and the Argentine, and, if not, when they will be made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This committee will be asked to consider an item of expenditure to make provision for legations in the Argentine and Brazil, but until financial provision has been made it would not be possible to make an appointment. I assume that there is little doubt that the house will approve the recommendation of the government to make provision for the appointment of ministers to the Argentine and to Brazil, but the appointments must await the appropriations by parliament.
Speaking of the representation of Canada in South America, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) this afternoon expressed a point of view which, it seems to me, will naturally present itself to many who are considering the question of the wider representation of Canada in other parts of the world. My hon. friend felt that this was perhaps not the best time to incur that increased expenditure. On the other hand, the hon. leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Gold-well) expressed the contrary view and said that he felt that at this particular time it was very desirable that Canada should have representation in the south American countries. The two points of view afford opportunity for debate, and I can assure hon. members that both have been taken into consideration very carefully by the government.
One of the reasons why the government feel that it is desirable to open legations in Brazil and the Argentine is that for some time past each of those countries has been desirous of opening legations in Ottawa. They have felt that it was in the interests of their countries to come into closer contact with Canada.
Their association with north America up to the present, so far as diplomatic representation is concerned, has been confined to the United States and Mexico, and they feel it would be to their advantage to be represented here.
Our government has precisely the same feeling about the representation of Canada in the two largest republics in south America, that this is a time when great changes are taking place in the world, that south America is likely from now on to have a much closer relationship in business affairs and in matters affecting government and the like with the continent of north America than she has ever had in the past. Unquestionably south American problems will become increasingly our problems as the situation in Europe comes to be changed for better or for worse in the course of the years now beginning, and the government feel that we owe it to the people of our country to be able to get first-hand knowledge of the changing situation in south America and that we should not leave that field, so far as relationships between countries are concerned, exclusively to other countries, leaving Canada the one country in this hemisphere with no diplomatic representation in south America.
There is the further point which I mentioned the other day, that all matters of trade are becoming increasingly matters with which governments must of necessity have some concern. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that he would like to see commercial agents keep more in touch with business men. When it comes to the import and export of commodities, licences have to be obtained and all kinds of controls are exercised. Unless the exporting country has some diplomatic agent in the other country who can make representations on its behalf, it is very likely to be completely ignored in international transactions of the kind. We have been fortunate in having wherever we felt we should make use of it the British diplomatic service, but just as we have found it to be to the advantage of Canada to have our own representation at Washington, Paris and elsewhere, so we believe we shall find it of equal advantage to have our own representation in south American countries.
Speaking on this matter, I should say that other Latin-American republics have pressed for an exchange of ministers with Canada. We have hitherto felt, and I think rightly, that we should begin our representation in south America in the two largest republics, and later on consider its extension to other countries of south America. I should speak perhaps of Chile in particular, but we have felt that until the two legations are opened
Supply-External Affairs

and we see what progress is made as a result, we should not for the present ask parliament to extend our representation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the Department of External Affairs have to consider educating our representatives in south American countries in the Spanish language, or will that be undertaken by our universities?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no doubt that we shall have to consider very carefully whatever appointments are made. We shall take care to see that whatever is required in the way of necessary Spanish assistance will be obtained in a manner that will be satisfactory to Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In view of the occupation of France and the low countries, would the minister say just where our representatives-Jean Desy, for instance-are at the present time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend is aware, when Holland and Belgium were overrun, the minister and staffs at both Brussels and. the Hague were obliged to leave, and indeed, only got away-


Richard Burpee Hanson: By the skin of their teeth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; as my hon. friend says, pretty much by the skin of their teeth. Certainly they had a very rapid exit, and one filled with considerable adventure. The legation staffs, however, moved to London. Mr. Desy was the minister at the Hague and at Brussels. For some months he was in London. He has since come back to Canada, and was in Montreal for a short time making a very complete report to the government on some matters of which he thought we should be informed. At the present time he is in the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa, on special duty.
As my hon. friend is aware, Colonel Georges Vanier is the minister to France. The government felt that Colonel Vanier would be not only a most acceptable but a most desirable member of the permanent joint defence board between Canada and the United States, and we asked him to come to Canada and for the time being to accept appointment on that board. That is the position which Colonel Vanier is filling at the present time.
Mr. Dupuy was made charge d'affaires when Colonel Vanier left. Mr. Dupuy has his headquarters in London. He has been to France, keeping in touch with the government there. Other members-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not asking the Prime Minister to go into detail.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the present time Mr. Dupuy is acting as charge d'affaires of Canadian representation to the Netherlands and Belgian governments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose that the decrease in these estimates is accounted for by the fact that the legations themselves are not functioning as such.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has had to be a considerable readjustment. In some instances as much in the way of representation is not required.


Arza Clair Casselman: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would mind making a statement respecting what progress, if any, has been made on the St. Lawrence treaty? This matter is of great interest to my constituency. In common with other representatives I have been endeavouring to get some information over a period of many weeks. As a matter of fact, within the last two months I was with a delegation before the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) here, when it was suggested to us that possibly we should go to Toronto for our information; I think the minister's words were that it was "a baby of the Ontario government". From what I see in the press I have come to the conclusion that possibly it is a baby of the United States government.
I am particularly interested because apparently the scheme which is now being discussed is one which has never been under consideration before. It is impossible to get any definite information or to obtain maps showing the water levels. This means a great deal to my constituency; I believe that some 26,000 acres of the earliest settled land in Ontario will be covered by water if a single stage scheme is carried out. I understand that such plans are in existence, and, at the time the delegation were before the Minister of Public Works, we received a promise from him that at some time those plans would be available, so that the people in that district would see what they were likely to suffer as the result of a development under a single stage plan. Although my information is indefinite, I have been told that these plans are in existence. When the Prime Minister is making a statement on this point, would he say where such plans can be seen?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that I can say more at the moment with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway project than to mention that, as I think my hon. friend is already aware, the subject is a matter of negotiation at the present time between the United States government and the Canadian government. Until those negotiations are

Supply-External Affairs
completed, when and if they are, I am hardly in a position to indicate to the committee what the nature of the agreement is to be. When my hon. friend says it differs from anything which has been considered before, he probably refers to only one phase of the agreement. The committee will recall that an agreement in the nature of a treaty was made between the government of Mr. Bennett and the government of the United States, but the United States Senate failed to sanction it. Further negotiations have taken a somewhat different form.
The view has been held that all the waterway problems, as far as it is possible to connect them, should be brought together into one agreement and dealt with there; that is to say, matters affecting power, navigation, the levels of the waters on the lakes, scenic aspects at Niagara, and the like. An agreement covering all of these interrelated problems has been under consideration by both governments more or less continuously for some time past. Any agreement which is reached will of necessity involve an agreement between the provincial government and the dominion government as to matters affecting Ontario. There will have to be an agreement or understanding with the province of Quebec with respect to matters affecting that province. I have always taken the position that, with respect to an international agreement, we would desire first to settle matters between our own provinces and the dominion government before we finally reached an agreement with another country. We have not yet completed the negotiations with either the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec. I hope that they will not take long to complete. If they are completed, the next stage would be to continue negotiations with the United States.
My hon. friend's question at the close related, I believe, more particularly to the one stage plan and the two stage plan development at Morrisburg. I cannot say offhand to him at the moment where these particular plans may be seen, but I shall make inquiries and, if they are available for inspection, give him a further answer later on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If we
understand the Prime Minister aright, the whole position is still in the negotiation stage, and therefore he is not in a position to make any statement as to what may be done. And, anterior to arriving at the agreement there must be, as he said, an agreement with the two provinces, because some of their rights, I assume, are to be affected. As I understand the legal position, the only jurisdiction this government has is with regard to navigation. If it were solely a question of power, which
I believe it to be, the major part of the jurisdiction would, of course, rest in the provinces, because I think it is an accepted fact that in law power that may be generated out of the Canadian development belongs to the provinces.
There is another aspect of the matter I might touch upon. When the previous arrangement was negotiated it was in the form of a treaty. Under their constitution that treaty had to go for confirmation and sanction to the senate of the United States. Is it proposed to follow the same practice in this, or is it proposed, as I have seen suggested, that by some stretch of the powers contained in the boundary waters treaty, it may be entered into as a mere agreement which would not require the assent of a two-thirds majority of the senate, as a treaty would in the United States, but merely a majority in both houses of congress?
I have taken the trouble to read the boundary waters treaty of 1909-10, and I venture the opinion that it was never the intention of *the high contracting parties to the treaty that an agreement involving the international section of the St. Lawrence waterway should be entered into as a mere agreement. There is no power there, and I would ask the Prime Minister whether the opinion of the Department of Justice has been taken on that particular phase of the question. If so, will he table it?
My own view is, and it is agreed to by others whose legal opinion I value, that the provisions of the treaty of 1909-10 do not contain powers to make an agreement of this kind respecting the development of a huge project such as would be developed at Morrisburg. It must be followed by a treaty. If the Prime Minister has an opinion on that point, as to the jurisdiction to proceed, not by way of treaty but by mere agreement, I should like to have that legal opinion tabled so that we might study it. The matter is of importance especially so far as the other high contracting party is concerned. As regards Canada, we have not the same constitutional provision. The treaty or agreement or whatever it may be, would, I assume, be submitted to parliament for adoption. If it is a treaty, it has to go to the United States senate to be confirmed by a two-thirds vote of that body. If it is a mere agreement, then it has only to carry the affirmative vote of a majority of both houses of congress. The Prime Minister will be seized of what I am suggesting. Has he taken an opinion on that point and, if so, is it available?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that the United States government itself has been considering whether in the public inter-
Supply-External Affairs

ests it would be preferable to have the understanding between Canada and the United States with respect to navigation and power on the St. Lawrence made in the form of an agreement between the two countries, which would be approved by a resolution of both houses, alike in the United States and Canada, or whether it should take the form of a treaty. There are arguments pro and con. The argument with respect to agreement is that if work is to be done it is likely to be pressing, and the more rapidly money can be procured for the purposes of development, the more expeditiously the work will be proceeded with. Whether or not the United States intends to press that aspect of the question I cannot say at the moment, but so far as we are concerned the Department of Justice has been looking into the very question which the hon. gentleman has raised, and I shall be in a position when a decision has been reached, to give him an opinion from the department regarding the legal point he has raised.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As soon
as convenient, if the opinion is available, I should like to have it.


Arza Clair Casselman: For
the purpose of keeping the record clear may I point out that both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have referred to the Morrisburg scheme. As a matter of fact, the Morrisburg scheme is the one referred to as scheme B in the report of the Hydro Electric Power commission engineers of 1921. Scheme B has never been considered from that time. There is no dam at Morrisburg under the scheme which I understand is being considered at the present time. Complete power development under the scheme which is now being considered is at Barnhart island. The new idea in the scheme is to have a control dam at the village of Iroquois, which village incidentally is to be wiped out. The control dam in itself is not a new scheme, because prior to 1921-as a matter of fact as far back as the days of the late Sir Adam Beck -a control dam was considered. Its location was not defined, but at least it was not at the village of Iroquois.
The scheme being considered at the present time develops power estimated at 2,200,000 horse power at Barnhart island. The control dam is at the village of Iroquois, and it is a dam which is not used for the purpose of developing power.
May I say again that my constituency is particularly interested because, under the previous treaty, which it was attempted to negotiate in 1932, only 9,000 acres of land was flooded. Under this scheme 26,000 acres will

be flooded, the greater part of which is on the Canadian side of the river. This is due to the fact that the banks on this side are much lower than on the United States side. I suggested in my first remarks on the subject that this was some of the first occupied land in Ontario. As a matter of fact, the occupancy of the land, the grants of title to the land go back to 1784. Many sites along the front in a distance of a few miles are most historical. The first church, the celebration of the 150th anniversary of which was held in 1934, is in this district. There is a memorial church and there are numerous cemeteries. Although the people in that district are told that their compensation will be such that they will have no worries after the project is completed, I assure hon. members and the people of the district that, afteT the project is completed, if it is completed' on the basis of a single-stage development, there will be more heart-burnings in the district than there have been in the previous one hundred and fifty-five years of its existence.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Will the Prime Minister make a statement regarding the personnel of the permanent joint board of defence, the authority they have, and what has been accomplished to date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not the names of the members of the permanent board, but I shall have them to-morrow. As to the powers of the board, they have powers of investigation of matters of joint defence on both Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the making of recommendations to the respective governments. The recommendations come in the form of reports from the board to the government of the United States and the Canadian government. The recommendations considered by the Canadian government are those relating to matters of defence for which, if the work is to be performed, Canada must undertake the responsibility. When the reports are received by the Canadian government, they are referred to the departments of the government to which the work itself relates. For example, if the work relates to naval defence, the report on that subject goes to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. If the work relates to air activities, it goes to the air minister. The matter is considered by the military experts in the department and the war committee of the cabinet on the recommendation of the minister decides whether or not the work is to be carried out.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition spoke about commitments, and said he found difficulty in understanding how there could be no commitments. I hope I have made it clear that while the board has power to make

Supply-External Affairs
recommendations to the government, the government itself decides whether or not those recommendations should be carried out and the work undertaken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is quite clear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But that is not in the nature of any commitment which Canada is under to the United States or which the United States is under to Canada. There is nothing in the nature of an obligation on the part of either government to carry out what the joint committee recommends except in so far as the government itself is prepared to take that step. That was what I meant in saying there were no commitments.
As to what has been done, I think perhaps the committee will agree that there is nothing in the nature of military secrets which should be kept more a secret than practically everything contained in the reports which have been made on the joint defence of Canada and the United States. We could not bring down those reports in this parliament without disclosing matters affecting the defence of the United States as well as our own coast defence. It would not do to publish that information; it is the information above all else that the enemy would wish to have. That is the sole reason for not publishing the reports.
I have here the names of the Canadian members of the permanent joint board. They are: Colonel O. M. Biggar, chairman; Brigadier Stewart, Air-Commodore Cuffe, Captain H. E. Reid, Colonel G. P. Vanier, H. L. Keenleyside, secretary.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if in this connection he is getting the full cooperation of the province of Ontario. Within the last five hours I had dinner at Brockville, where I saw a corps of engineers of the Ontario hydro electric, with blueprints and what not, who are working on this project. The question I am asking is whether we are getting the full cooperation of the Ontario government with regard to this St. Lawrence development.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I cannot answer that question until an actual agreement between Ontario and the dominion has been reached. I have every reason to believe that for some time past there has been a disposition on the part of the government of Ontario to cooperate with this government in matters pertaining to the St. Lawrence. Whether or not all the questions that have to be considered have thus far been taken up, I am not in a position to say.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was just
anxious to get from the Prime Minister a
statement that as far as the general plan is concerned, as it is being developed by the dominion authority, it is in unison with the general plan of the province of Ontario with regard to the development of power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that is correct.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not know whether or not I should ask the Prime Minister, but one question that arose a year or two ago was that of the export of power. I realize that the Prime Minister may not be able to answer that question now, but if he can, would he tell the committee whether or not any agreement with Ontario is predicated on the question of the export of power?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply has been conducting negotiations with the Ontario government, on behalf of the federal government. This evening he told me there were some matters still to be considered. The question my hon. friend has mentioned may be among that number, but I am not in a position to say definitely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no desire to hold up the Prime Minister's estimates, which are not ordinarily of a contentious nature, but my colleague the hon. member for Broadview would like to speak on this subject to-morrow, so I would ask the Prime Minister to call it eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend not allow one item to go through?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes. Will we take up these estimates to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I may say to my hon. friend that I am anxious to get through the estimates of the Department of External Affairs in order that I may give attention to other very pressing matters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We shall be very glad to help the Prime Minister get them through.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the Prime Minister would be kind enough to say that he will give us some statement with regard to the question of licences for the export of power under this development.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think until we have concluded negotiations with the province of Ontario, any matters that are likely to arise in connection with those negotiations would be better left over. I prefer not to make a statement at the present time.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps it will come after instead of before.
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. JACKMAN:: I understand there are still a number of members who wish to ask some questions with regard to these estimates. If the request of our leader in regard to the hon. member for Broadview is granted, will it apply also to other members on this side?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose if we had strictly followed the customary practice, we would have confined discussion to the particular item before the committee. I think we have discussed everything but that item. I would not ask that the item be passed except with the understanding that on other items the same general discussion may be carried on, if it is so desired.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the Prime Minister will agree that on the administration item the discussion usually is of the widest character, but that we are confined to the particular items in subsequent discussions. To-morrow we will facilitate the passage of these estimates, but several hon. members do wish to speak, and I would ask the Prime Minister to report progress now.


Thomas Reid: Shall the item carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: With that understanding; or is it absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister's purpose to get an item through to-night? I do not know the technical position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; it is not
necessary at all.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 25, 1941.