Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Yes. Let me give an illustration. Take an invoice of $100. You add 10 per cent exchange tax and that gives you SI 10; 25 per cent duty, or $25, brings it to $135; add the sales tax of 8 per cent on $125, or $10 more, and you have $145; then take freight, cash discount, and so on, 3 per cent, or $3, and you have a total cost of $148 on an invoice of $100. Up to October 15 a man could buy goods of this kind to the value of $100 in the United States and bring them here and save money. That is a condition I should like the government to look into. It should be referred to the war prices board. I do not want them to be bamboozled by any leather controller who is himself interested in leather production. Let us get away from that sort of thing.

We have been told that prices are being held down. Perhaps they are, but I have

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)

been informed that the price of sole leather has been raised three times in Canada since the declaration of war. The price index shows that wholesale prices have risen 14-4 per cent since the war began, yet we are told that the cost of living has advanced much less than that. I know it cannot be so; just ask the housewife. We have war inflation. Wages will have to increase, and the vicious spiral is upon us.

I am not going to apologize for dealing with the Rowell-Sirois report. This is one of the most important matters that should engage the attention of parliament. I will try to compress what I have to say with respect to it. I regret exceedingly that the Chief Justice of Ontario, who originally headed the commission, had to resign because of ill health, but I do congratulate the government on having been fortunate enough to obtain the services of Mr. Sirois, whom I have known for quite a number of years and with whom I have collaborated professionally in days gone by. He carried on with great competence and dignity, and I met him in Fredericton when he acted on the commission.

I have always felt that, however eminent was the personnel of the commission, its composition had a decidedly political flavour. It would have been wiser if someone who took a rather different view of our constitutional problems had been a member. That suggestion was made before, I believe, but it was not adopted. However, I do not wish to be taken as in any degree attacking the personnel of the commission. They were all students and exponents of our constitution, although it is fair, I think, to say that they were all of the same school of thought.

The report is voluminous and it is beyond my capacity to analyse it all. At this stage it is not necessary. I have, however, read the summary of its recommendations and portions of the report itself. I have likewise read with great interest a number of articles analysing the recommendations. With some of the recommendations I am in accord; with some I feel sure there will be great difficulty in reaching agreement and action, and as to others I hold the view that they should not be implemented at all. The time has not arrived, however, at which any specific declarations should be made with respect to my particular position. I suggest that it is wholly wrong to say that this report represents "a new charter for Canada," as was suggested on Friday last by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton). It is not a new bill of rights. Rather is it a reorientation of the powers conferred by the British North America Act-a reallocation of powers.

As I understand our constitution, we now have all the powers we need as a member of the British empire, save and except the right to amend our own constitution. The most vital part is a reallocation of the powers of taxation, and it is that part of the report to which attention should be given.

On Thursday last the Prime Minister announced the calling of a dominion-provincial conference to be held some time in January, while parliament is not in session, and he laid on the table-and this has been printed in votes and proceedings-his letter of November 2 to all the nine provincial premiers. As I recollect, it was reported that eight provincial premiers had accepted the invitation to attend, and since the Prime Minister made the announcement the premier of Ontario has announced the intention of his government to attend and participate. But the announcement was coupled with a warning that "Ontario is opposed to any move to raid Ontario taxpayers for the benefit of other provinces." Well, to say the least, that is rather a jarring note and does not suggest unanimity. I do not wish to characterize it as anything worse than that. Apparently the premier of Ontario was opposed to any discussion, according to newspaper report, taking the view that there should be no possibility of any controversial issue arising which might impair national unity and the effective prosecution of the war.

It has been said in the press that the conference will be a re-confederation conference. In my view this is a rather large order and one that is not likely to be achieved. There are in this country some people who are apt to view lightly the achievements of the fathers of confederation. I do not share that view. I hold the view that they did a wonderful work in that they created a nation in the northern half of this hemisphere, and I believe that their work will endure. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George on Friday quoted some unnamed private member with reference to the British North America Act as speaking of "the miasma of the constitution". That, I suggest, is a misnomer. Our constitution is not a miasma, but the interpretation of the constitution by judicial bodies has in a degree led us into a miasma of doubt as to just what at times the constitution really is. It is a repetition of the theory enunciated by a great chief justice of the United States that "the constitution is what the judges say it is"-speaking in reference to the constitution of the United States. That was never the intention of the founding fathers so far as Canada is concerned. Down to 1910 no great difficulty had arisen out of the interpretation, but in that year a noble law lord developed a new theory from which

32 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Hanson ( York-Sunbury)

trouble has flowed almost ever since. I could refer to suggestions that have been made by Mr. W. F. O'Connor, K.C., with reference to a declaratory statute. I shall not take the time to do so.

I hold the view that the fathers of confederation intended that Canada should have a strong central government. That view has been weakened by judicial interpretation of the British North America Act. It must not be weakened further. That is my own personal view, and I have not asked any of this galaxy of constitutional lawyers who sit behind me what their views are. I am very strong in the view that the central authority must not be weakened. If anyone doubts the soundness of the view that we must have in Canada strong central governmental powers, let him read the "peace, order and good government" clauses in section 91 and note the use to which these powers have been put in the testing times of war. That is the acid test as to whether we should have a strong central government or not. If we are to consider the Rowell-Sirois report I am in agreement that we should not postpone dealing with it until after the war. But I do suggest to the Prime Minister that because of preoccupation with war measures and war activities it may well be that the government and parliament cannot give to the consideration of the problems arising all the thought and reflection necessaiy. But in my view that is not a valid reason for postponing its consideration. We may not get as good results as we might under less pressing conditions, but we should not postpone its consideration.

It is stated by the commission, and I believe the Prime Minister has more or less adopted this theory that:

The need for some action designed to enable the people of Canada to throw their whole weight into any great national effort, such as the struggle to which they have committed themselves, and at the same time to ensure the smooth working of the social and educational services necessary for the welfare of the mass of the people, is far greater and far more urgent in time of war and of post-war organization than it is in time of peace.

The commission also declared that it is precisely to these two main objectives that its chief recommendations have been directed; that is to say, the throwing of the weight of the country into a great national effort and consequently ensuring the smooth working of the social and educational services on which the welfare of the people depends.

If it is necessary to implement the report in order to enable the people of Canada to throw their whole weight into the great national effort in which we are engaged, why

has the government waited so long? The report was in the hands of the government when parliament met in May. It is now six months since it was tabled, and the whole outline of the recommendations and the suggested new relationship between the dominion and the provinces has been well known and well understood. We had a recess of three months from August. Why was this move to confer not made between August and November, if it was so important and so urgent? I do not know whether the talk of coalition had anything to do with the matter. I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) who flew out west the other day for some reason or another.

Mr. CRERAR:

May I set my hon. friend's mind at rest immediately-

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

My mind is not troubled about anything the minister may do.

Mr. CRERAR:

May I say my hon. friend has a totally wrong impression.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I am just querying the minister.

Mr. CRERAR:

I may tell my hon. friend that any coalition in Manitoba had nothing whatever to do with this question.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Then we have the answer. A cat can look at a king; surely I can look at the Minister of Mines and Resources and ask him a question.

It will be exactly eight months from the time the report was tabled until it is to be considered at this conference. One of the leading recommendations of the commission is with respect to the reallocation of taxing power. This is of great and direct interest to industry and to every part of the community upon which the burden of taxation falls. Portions of the recommendations of the commission go some distance in an effort to meet the submissions on taxation made by various semi-public bodies, and it is felt that the implementing of these recommendations will contribute greatly to the financial strength and stability of the country, because it is believed that it will

(a) reduce substantially the cost of tax collection ;

(b) remove causes of friction between the ten existing taxing authorities;

(c) and enable business to expand, with relative increase in national income. ^

To these I should like to add this

hope, that ,

(d) there is a strong possibility that their implementation will reduce in some degree the burden of taxation itself.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)

One word more on this subject. I am bound to say that I believe that a dominion-provincial conference is not good enough. There will be seated at that conference representatives of probably less than half the people of Canada. There should be, in addition to the provincial premiers, the leaders of the opposition groups in this house and in the provincial legislatures, and there should also be invited to be present-and not merely as spectators-leaders of public opinion in other spheres of human activity in Canada; in particular, representatives of taxpayers. Surely they are entitled to be represented; they pay the bill. Boards of trade, chambers of commerce, labour and farm organizations should be invited to be present and join with the government in a great round-table conference. Unless that principle is recognized it can never be said that there was a genuine national attempt to solve the problems immediately under discussion. I desire to emphasize this particularly. It may be a departure from the practice of the past, but I suggest to the Prime Minister and the government that such a course would be an evidence of the working of democracy in Canada that in days gone by has not been evident. In any event it would do nothing but good; it may do a great deal of good.

I did intend to say something about the St. Lawrence waterway, but I do not think I should trespass much longer on the time of the house. The Prime Minister to-day tabled the correspondence, and I have not had opportunity to look at it. I shall therefore reserve what I have to say on that matter. I had also intended to say something about leadership in Canada, but also reserve my remarks on that subject until a later date.

I cannot, however, refrain from saying something about the position of truck transportation in the province of Prince Edward Island. I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a condition in that island, which gave him a haven at one time, also of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who has a haven there now, and of my friends the hon. members from the counties of Queens and Kings. I refer particularly to a condition that obtains there with respect to the ability of the farmers of Prince Edward Island to market their products. I hold in my hand a copy of what is the charter of union for the province of Prince Edward Island, an order in council passed at Windsor on June 26, 1873, with which I suppose every individual in that province is familiar from childhood, but which, strange to say, I never heard mentioned in this house until now. I am sure the senior 14873-3

member for Queens (Mr. Douglas) knows that upon this charter of union the people of Prince Edward Island have always based their claims in the matter of transportation.

For years Prince Edward Island has suffered because of its insular position. I well remember the agitation, extending over a long period of years, for a tunnel. That hope was never realized; probably it never will be. But I remember that in 1911 in Charlottetown Sir Robert Borden made a great speech in which he said that Prince Edward Island had never been fairly treated by any government in the matter of transportation. He promised then and there that he would have a car ferry established, and he did so. Since then we have heard nothing more about a tunnel. The operation of that ferry was entrusted to the Canadian Government Railways, now the Canadian National, and for a time all went well. Then, with the changing character of transportation, there came into operation in Prince Edward Island, together with the rest of Canada, motor truck transportation, using the internal combustion engine; and with this truck competition it is no longer economical to transport island products by rail for short hauls. This condition is apparent everywhere, but the advantage to the primary producer has not reached the island producer, who has a substantial grievance against the Canadian National, which operates this ferry for the government, and also against the government.

The position is this. A producer with a truck desires to sell his load of potatoes, or oats, or whatever it may be, on the mainland and bring back a return load of coal, lumber, manufactured goods or something else. He can get transport on the ferry for his motor truck, all right, but not on the basis of a private motor car. He must pay ferriage on his truck, railway freight on his load of potatoes, ferriage on his truck when returning and freight on his return load, the freight depending upon the classification of the commodity. The charge for a five-ton truck is $12 each way for the truck alone, or a total of $24. With a three-ton load of commodities I am told that total charges for ferriage and freight both ways is about $50, in order to get across nine miles of water with a third class commodity.

I am sure this matter has not been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister or it would have been remedied long ago. This was the first I had heard of it, at all events, and I am bringing it to the attention of the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. What would the other provinces of Canada

34 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)

think of such a cost, which is equivalent to a tariff, in order to cross the border of an adjoining province? Then think of the expensive canal system which we have built and which we operate without charging any tolls to the ships using it. What farmer can stand a toll like the one I have mentioned? I am told that this situation has obtained for years and has been a source of great inconvenience and loss to the island farmers. This is a restraint of trade by a government service.

Some two or three years ago an effort was made, I think by Mr. Dunning at the instance of the Charlottetown board of trade

I am quite prepared to give the credit wherever it is due-to alter this position. A scheme was suggested and adopted whereby, under the auspices of members of the Charlottetown board of trade, a company was formed with sufficient paid-up capital for the establishment of a truck and motor car ferry between Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, near Pictou, Nova Scotia. By means of a grant from this parliament, facilities were constructed for landing docks on the island and at Caribou. This scheme was to be assisted by an annual subsidy of some $28,000 from the federal treasury for the service of a ferry steamer which was to operate for seven months of the year, from May 1. I am told that this scheme, if developed and put into operation, would greatly reduce truck transportation costs between the island and the mainland. A boat was purchased; I think it was called the Sea Hawk, or some such name, and renamed the Charles A. Dunning. I am told that this boat was admirably adapted for the service, but shortly after the outbreak of war it was requisitioned by either the Canadian or the British naval authorities, so the service never went into operation. Then another boat was obtained and put into condition at great expense. This boat also was requisitioned by the naval authorities, and again the service was not put into operation. Finally the old Hochelaga was trotted out. This boat is totally unfitted for the service, as I can personally testify.

I do not want to say anything I should not say, but it appears that the first boat obtained, the Dunning, never has been put to use by the navy but is being used as living quarters for naval officers in the city of Halifax. I am told that there is some naval etiquette attached to this matter, and I may not know all the ramifications of it, but I should think we could find some place else for the naval officers to live, if they must live afloat, instead of robbing the people of Prince Edward Island of the boat they bought and fixed up for this important service. I think I know the true significance of it all,

but I am not going to say anything more about it. This sort of thing ought to be rectified. The first boat never has been used for anything but living quarters for certain officers. This state of affairs seems unfair to the private interests developing the scheme, to the farming and fishing industries, and particularly to the tourist trade of the island province. Prince Edward Island is represented in this house by four supporters of the government, but so far as the records show, their voices never have been raised in connection with this matter. Why? Let us have an end to this sort of thing; let the farmers of Prince Edward Island have a fair chance to sell their produce in competition with those on the mainland. That little island sent five thousand volunteers, out of a total population of eighty-nine thousand, while voluntary recruitment was in force. Its record has not been equalled by that of any other part of this dominion. That is the sort of people they are, and I submit that they are entitled to a little better treatment in this matter. I have high hopes that I need only to mention these facts to have the situation rectified. How can the island farmer live, let alone prosper, with oats at 25 cents a bushel and potatoes at 30 cents a bag? Those were the prices in October.

I have almost finished, Mr. Speaker, but before I take my seat I want to refer briefly to two other matters. We on your left, sir, hold the view, and I believe it is well founded, that it has been the deliberate policy of the government, during the past session as well as during the interval since we adjourned in August, to endeavour to create the impression that all was well with our war effort. In our view the government has sought to lull and soothe the Canadian people into a false sense of security, and continues to do so. It has sought to convince the people that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. Those who are alive to the situation know the dangers that lurk behind such a position, and they are alike alarmed and anxious. Knowing of this feeling I am impelled to propose to the government that it cause to be set up immediately two select special committees which will be charged with the responsibility and the duty of investigating and reporting to this house factually, objectively and truthfully, without bias and without partisanship-and I have no doubt that is possible-what is our exact position (a) with respect to our fighting forces, military, naval and air; and (b) with respect to the production and delivery of all. the important materials, equipment and supplies necessary in our war effort, so that the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

Canadian people may know the truth. Before such committees ministers could appear and be subject to questioning. Progress reports in the form of speeches in the house by ministers are not good enough. You can never elicit the naked facts in that manner. Only the time-proven method of crossexamination by question and answer will suffice. The process should be free from anything in the nature of propaganda. The public has been fed that until it is nauseated. Let us face the facts

not by the methods of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but by the methods of the round table.

The government may hold the view that it is not in the public interest that the facts and figures for which I am asking be disclosed. I know the matter is not free from difficulties. When I make the proposal I visualize many of its implications, but I am convinced that the method I have suggested is the only real way in which the government may satisfy the public. I am willing with some of my colleagues to meet with the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues so that we may consider the whole proposal, in an honest effort to arrive at a conclusion.

The other point to which I wish to refer is the plight of agriculture in Canada. From observations I have made and from reports which have reached me I know that agriculture in Canada is in a serious condition. How is the farmer of New Brunswick to live on 50 cents a barrel for his potatoes, when the production cost is nearly a dollar? Help is being given to the wheat farmer-and properly so- and to the apple farmer. What about the farmer in New Brunswick? In Canada we have nearly a million farmers. Approximately one-half of our population is directly or indirectly dependent upon agriculture for its daily bread. The farmer is not and for a long time has not been receiving a just, fair and reasonable return for his products. Instead of improving his position, as was anticipated by most people-and I must confess I was among the number who thought his position would be improved-the war has actually accentuated his distress. To say that until we have a prosperous and contented agricultural population in Canada we can have no happiness is merely to repeat a truism.

It is a matter of profound regret to me, and I am sure it will be to the agricultural population of Canada, that no action of any sort is even indicated in the proposals set out in the speech from the throne. This condition cannot continue, and I desire to bring home to the government the seriousness of the situation and to ask that this omission be given immediate attention. With that end in view 14873-34

I propose to move an amendment to the resolution under consideration. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling):

That the following be added to the address to His Excellency:

"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.

" And this house further regrets that despite the serious condition of agriculture no effective action is proposed to alleviate that condition and to ensure to the Canadian farmer a just, fair and reasonable return for his products."

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in the congratulations he has extended ,to the mover (Mr. Claxton) and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address to His Excellency in reply to His Excellency's speech from the throne. May I also thank my hon. friend for the tribute he paid to the talents of the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply.

Speaking at the opening session of this parliament I remarked that I believed Canada was particularly fortunate in the fact that a large percentage of members elected for the first time to seats in parliament had given so much of time and thought to a study not only of Canadian but of international problems. I pointed out that not only was that a fortunate condition for the hon. members themselves, but one particularly fortunate for parliament. If we needed a demonstration of the truth of that statement I am sure we received it in the excellent speeches made on Friday last.

The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) comes to us with an established reputation. The high position he has attained at the bar of his own province was known to many of us. We knew, too, the extent to which he had given serious thought and study to social, industrial and international problems. Therefore we expected that, when he addressed the house, we would hear a speech which would evidence thoughtful consideration of the great problems confronting the world to-day. We had reason to believe that the hon. member would be statesmanlike in his utterances. We were not disappointed. The speech delivered on Friday last by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George revealed how fully he appreciated the magnitude of present-day problems and that he had gone deeply into the causes which

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

have contributed to the present world situation. It indicated, too, that the hon. member had given careful consideration to the policies which may be necessary to meet the situation which faces us. No finer introduction could have been made to the consideration and discussion of the great problems with which in the present session we shall be obliged to deal.

The same might be said of the speech of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras). His, too, was an excellent introduction to the consideration of questions we shall have to take up this session. The hon. member sustained the high position enjoyed by his constituency in the public life of Canada. In a way Provencher is typical of the whole of Canada. It is a constituency standing midway between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Its population is divided almost evenly between English-speaking and French-speaking citizens. Moreover, through the course-of the years since confederation, it has enjoyed representation of a varied character. I need not remind hon. members that at one time Conservative opinion in that constituency was represented by no less distinguished a person than Sir George Etienne Cartier. I need not remind those who, like myself, are inclined to be more or less radical, that Louis Riel was also elected to represent that constituency. I need not add that through the years the constituency has been represented by many distinguished Liberals. To do justice to a constituency so representative, that it is practically a microcosm of our whole dominion, is no small task. I would say to the hon. member who, by the way, is one of the youngest members in the house, that in the manner in which he spoke on Friday alike in French and in English he reflected great credit not only upon himself but upon his constituency.

With respect to the speeches of both hon. members there is one significant fact which I hope all of us may find it possible to keep in mind during our discussions at this time and in this place. The two hon. members are representative of minorities in their respective provinces. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is of the minority in race and religion in the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Provencher is of the minority in race and religion in the province of Manitoba. These two gentlemen made a similar appeal to this House of Commons. Each made a strong appeal for toleration, and above all for unity in this dominion of Canada. In that appeal for toleration, in that appeal for unity, I believe they rendered the greatest service that could be rendered in addresses given at the opening of a new session of parliament.

I noticed that their speeches were eloquent of that feeling of harmony and goodwill which, despite the existence of war in the world to-day, fortunately continues to be characteristic of the spirit of our country.

In the nature of things we will be forced to discuss, probably pretty warmly, many questions which will come before us. I am sure, however, that hon. members will realize that at this time, perhaps as never before, each and every one will be called upon to exercise a measure of restraint in what we say concerning our own problems, and an even greater measure of restraint with reference to what we say about other nations and their problems.

May I come now to the remarks of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). Let me say that I do not intend to be critical of what he has said. He has fallen into the error, of which I have been guilty frequently, of trying to take up too many things at one time. I can be sympathetic with him in that regard. I feel that his address would have been improved had he devoted more of it to the immediate world situation and Canada's effort in relation thereto, and foregone taking up so great a variety of topics. He might have waited until a little later in the session to deal with some of them.

His first criticism was of the speech from the throne. I was not at all surprised at that because I fully expected it. Had I made a long speech-

Oh, oh.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

-or, rather, had I advised His Excellency to make a long speech, I am sure my hon. friend would have taken me severely to task and told me that I had not learned from experience. On the other hand, because the speech has the merit of brevity, he now says, to use his own words, that "it falls short in everything else by which we measure what a speech from the throne should be." This afternoon my hon. friend showed great admiration for Britain. It would be a strange thing if any speaker to-day or at any time had not the strongest admiration for Britain. I share all his admiration for Britain, but I believe that perhaps I have a greater admiration for Canada than he has. I do not mean that my admiration for Canada is greater than is my admiration for Britain. I mean that on the score of admiration I see no reason for drawing a line between our respective loyalties.

I refer to what my hon. friend has said about Britain because in thinking of the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

advice I should tender his excellency I went to the trouble of looking up the speech from the throne which was delivered in the United Kingdom at the session held after war was declared. I found it so admirable that I thought I could not do better than repeat as nearly as possible the language of that speech. Perhaps I should give hon. members quotations from the speech from the throne delivered in Britain on November 28. I hold in my hand one page which contains the entire speech. I should like to direct the attention of my hon. friend particularly to the first paragraph. He has said a good deal this afternoon which has been critical of Canada's war effort. I feel that he has been giving us a picture of what is in his own mind, arising out of his conception of his duty as leader of the opposition. I do not believe, however, that the point of view which he has expressed in regard to Canada's war effort reflects the opinion either of the people of Canada, or of the people of the great republic to the south to which he has referred also, or of the people of Great Britain. He will find in the opening sentence of the speech from the throne delivered in Britain on November 28 words which will be a complete answer to much that he has said by way of criticism of Canada's war effort. The king's speech was as follows:

My lords and members of the House of Commons,

The prosecution of the war commands the energies of all my subjects. My dominions overseas are participating wholeheartedly and with an effectiveness which is most gratifying to me.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That was a year ago.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

This was delivered on November 28, 1939. I quote again:

Throughout the world my navies, together with the merchant navy and fishing fleets, are keeping free and open the highways of the sea. At home, in France and in all stations overseas, my armies and air forces are fulfilling their tasks. I am well assured that they will be equal to any efforts and sacrifices to which they may be called.

Members of the House of Commons,

You will be asked to make further financial provision for the conduct of the war.

My lords and members of the House of Commons,

Grave responsibilities rest upon you at this time. You will, I am convinced, express the resolution of the nation.

The measures which will be submitted to you are such as seem necessary to my advisers for the welfare of my people and the attainment of the purpose upon which all our efforts are set.

I pray that Almighty God will give His blessing to your counsels.

I wish to draw particular attention, to the reference to the legislative programme, because it was to that aspect of the speech that my hon. friend referred especially. It was that reference which caused him to say that "the speech from the throne falls short in everything else" - meaning brevity - "by which we measure what a speech from the throne should be." The legislative programme of the parliament of the United Kingdom relates to all its responsibilities, both domestic and imperial. That parliament has to deal with matters similar to those dealt with by our provincial legislatures, in addition to those matters with which this parliament has to deal. The parliament of the United Kingdom has also to do with a vast colonial empire scattered over many parts of the world. Yet the legislative programme as related to all this, as outlined in the speech from the throne, reads:

The measures which will be submitted to you are such as seem necessary to my advisers for the welfare of my people and the attainment of the purpose upon which all our efforts are set.

This resembles fairly closely what His Excellency was kind enough to say at my suggestion:

The measures which will be submitted to you are such as seem necessary to my advisers for the welfare of the country, and for the prosecution of the war to the utmost of our strength.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker, before the recess I had occasion to refer to the comment which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made upon the speech from the throne. In the course of my hon. friend's remarks he referred not only to the speech of his excellency at the opening of the present parliament, but also to the speech which was delivered by the deputy to the Governor General at the closing of the last session of parliament, which took place two days previously. My hon. friend's comment in reference to that speech was that it indicated a change of point of view on the part of the government; he said that he had been urging all along that the emphasis in all matters of war effort should be placed upon the defence of Britain, whereas the administration seemed to have had in view as its first obligation the defence of Canada. My hon, friend cited as evidence of tie

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

accuracy of his statement the following passage from the speech from the throne of November 5:

The measures which you have taken have had in view the immediate task of sharing more completely in the defence of Britain and securing our own country more effectively against internal subversion and external attack.

He did not read the next sentence, but I shall read it:

They have also had in view the long range task of insuring the ultimate defeat of the enemy.

I fail to see wherein the statement as there presented differs in any particular from the announcement of policy of the government with respect to Canada's participation in the war as it was made at the very outset and has been ever since. Hon. members may recall that on September 3, 1939, His Majesty the King addressed all parts of the British empire over the radio in the afternoon, that being the day on which Great Britain went into the war; and his majesty made an appeal to all the dominions to make their own the cause of freedom which Britain had taken up. That same day I broadcast on behalf of the government to the people of Canada; indeed, it was a broadcast which went, I believe, to all parts of the British commonwealth; I then announced what I had already stated the policy of the government would be in the event of war-the policy which we would present to this parliament at the time it would be called upon to decide as to Canada's participation. I have here the broadcast which I made on that occasion, and I find in it the following passage:

This morning the king, speaking to his peoples at home and across the seas, appealed to all to make their own the cause of freedom which Britain had again taken up. Canada has already answered that call. On Friday last the government, speaking on behalf of the Canadian people, announced that in the event of the United Kingdom becoming engaged in war in an effort to resist aggression, they would as soon as parliament meets seek its authority for effective cooperation by Canada at the side of Britain.

That was the statement of policy of this government, made before Britain herself had gone into the war, made known to the people of Canada as the policy this government would follow if Britain went to war to resist aggression-that we would immediately summon parliament and we would ask parliament to stand at the side of Britain in that great struggle.

Now. what is it in this speech which my hon. friend says denotes a change of policy:

The measures which you have taken have had in view the immediate task of sharing more

: Ml'. Mackenzie King.]

completely in the defence of Britain and securing our own country more effectively against internal subversion and external attack.

All through the days and months which have passed since war was declared the government has held to that one position, that we were fighting at the side of Britain against aggression; and in doing so we have noted particularly two obligations; one, the primary obligation of defence of our own country; second, co-operation with our forces at the side of Britain in Britain herself.

But my hon. friend, if I gather rightly, says, "You are reversing the order. Your primary duty should not be that of defending your own country, you should be over in Britain at the side of Britain, your primary responsibility is there." Well, may I say to my hon. friend that in the course of the years that I have had responsibility I have attended several imperial conferences in the old land. The first conference I attended was as long ago as 1923; the next conference I attended was in 1926; I attended another imperial conference in 1937; and in each of those conferences a main subject of discussion was the question of defence, of how most effectively the different parts of the British commonwealth of nations could cooperate in the event of the different parts deciding to join together in the face of a common foe. In the discussions which took place on each of those occasions a definite policy was laid down. It was the same on each occasion; the primary duty of each part was its own defence.

I have in my hand the proceedings of the conference of 1926, and I find under the heading "Defence", page 2S:

The conference gave much consideration to the question of defence and to the methods by which the defence arrangements of each part of the empire could be most effectively coordinated.

The conclusions reached by the imperial conference on the subject of defence may be summarized as follows:

The first conclusion refers to the resolutions on defence "adopted at the last session of the conference". These are reaffirmed. What were the resolutions adopted "at the last session"? They were those of the conference of 1923. .

The conference of 1926 reaffirmed the policy laid down at the previous conference. In the policy then laid down there appear the following words:

The conference suggests the following as guiding principles:

(a) Primary responsibility of each portion of the empire represented at the conference for its own local defences.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

That has been the policy of every imperial conference, namely, that the first duty of each part of the empire was its own local defence; having secured its own local defences, it would be in a position the more effectively to cooperate with the other parts of the empire in any effort against a common foe. That is the policy we have pursued from the beginning, the policy that we are pursuing to-day, and the policy that we intend to pursue so long as we are responsible for the administration of Canada's war effort.

I noticed my hon. friend contradicted himself a little before he got through. It was not his only contradiction. He referred with some concern to the situation on the Pacific. Really, according to his reasoning I do not see why we should be concerned about the Pacific if our main concern at this time is to be in England. The Pacific is even farther away than the Atlantic. The truth of the matter is that we are deeply concerned with the defence of the coasts of Canada both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, and have been regarding both with the utmost care and concern during the period that we have had responsibility.

I pass now to what my hon. friend had to say about discussions in parliament. That was the next subject to which he referred. He suggested that there again the government and I in particular were going back on a principle for which we had stood and which we had advocated very strongly in past years, a principle which my hon. friend regards as all important, namely, the supremacy of parliament. I agree with my hon. friend entirely that no principle is more important than that of the supremacy of parliament. But where my hon. friend errs is that he mistakes the supremacy of the opposition for the supremacy of parliament. Analyse his words and you will see that this is what they come to. He complains that we have been legislating by order in council during the period of the war. Where did we get the authority to legislate by order in council with respect to war measures but from this Canadian parliament? If we do not exercise that power in the light of our responsibility as viewed by hon. members of this parliament, the power that gave us that authority can take it away and will take it away. And that power is the supremacy of parliament. But each time my hon. friend speaks he seems to feel that he is parliament-he and the group that sit about him-and that because he and his followers are outnumbered by others in this house, therefore parliament is not supreme. I look upon the parliament that has been sent here fresh from the people of Canada as the parliament the people desire

to carry on the business of the country. The people have designated in the representatives here assembled those whom they consider best able to give expression to their will at the present time. The gentlemen who have received that responsibility and trust are all assembled within the walls of this building and they are supreme; and their supremacy is at all times the supremacy of the majority in this house. This government will at all times bow to the will of that majority. So long as we have that majority behind us we intend to act in the light of the responsibility which is ours, a responsibility we owe to the majority, and through the majority to the people. The moment our actions cease to command the confidence of the majority in this House of Commons, that moment we shall be the first to submit our resignations and to let others take our place.

May I pass now to the next subject discussed by the leader of the opposition. It had reference to the conduct of public business here. My hon. friend rather dramatically rededicated the Conservative party to the public service. I must say that, after the name which the party gave itself in the last election, and under which it ran, it needed rededication. My hon. friend did himself and the party and his friends a good turn when he laid emphasis anew on the word " Conservative ". It is a much more congenial designation than "Union government", the name under which most of those directly opposite me were returned to the House of Commons.

My hon. friend made a statement of the policy of his party as it would be at this session. I wish to thank him for that statement. It is one which I think does both him and the party credit, and if he can only hold to it I dto not think there will be much difference between us during the session. In that statement my hon. friend undertook to cooperate with the government in its war effort, to be constructive in his criticism of that effort, to reserve to himself the right to discuss any of the matters pertaining to the business of the country as they might be considered in time of peace, and generally speaking to further as far as possible the interests of all at this very critical time. That was a good statement and I hope, my hon. friend and those associated with him will be able to live up to it throughout the session.

My hon. friend says he does not intend to be a rubber stamp. I would not wish him to be, but may I say that that is the role that most minorities play in national governments, and I hope we shall not find on any side a desire for a step that will lead to rubber stamping at this particular time.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

The leader of the opposition dwelt at some length upon what he said was a mistaken attitude in the government's war effort, namely, putting Canada first. I touched upon that just before the recess. He seemed to think that we ought to put Britain first. May I remind him that it was not this party, it was not the members on this side of the house that created a "Canada first" policy and tried to educate the Canadian people in their attitude towards interimperial relations on a "Canada first" point of view. At the time the "Canada first" cry was raised I protested against it as strongly as I could. I felt that the day would come when those who were responsible for it would wish very much that they had not made it quite so prominent in the ears of the young people who were then growing up in this country. It always represented to my mind a grossly selfish and unfair attitude in interimperial relations, and I am glad that my hon. friend has to-day repudiated a cry under which at one time he came back into this House of Commons as a member.

The leader of the opposition went on to speak at some length of Canada's war effort. He asked many questions of the ministry in regard to matters pertaining to the different departments. I shall leave to my colleagues, the ministers of the different departments of defence, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of War Services and the Minister of Finance, replies which I think they are better qualified to make than I am, and which would come more appropriately from them. But I do wish to answer at once the statement made by my hon. friend that, because of a single article which he quoted from a New York paper, the opinion which is held of Canada's war effort is that on the whole it has been inadequate. My hon. friend quoted from a statement made by Mr. Hanson W. Baldwin, the military critic of the New York Times. Almost any article, written by whoever it may be, is capable of the kind of interpretation which the reader may wish to put upon it. Particularly in an article which is to a large extent descriptive, which covers a lot of ground, which tries to view a situation, not in the light of the moment only, but in the light of passing events, and in the light of the future as well, can anyone place upon its paragraphs the interpretation which he pleases.

My hon. friend has chosen a few paragraphs from this particular article and apart from the text as a whole has cited them as the reason for changing his mind about the necessity of having parliament meet earlier than it otherwise might have met. He had not realized, until he read the words of a military critic, that w'e could be as far behind in our

war effort as we are, and he cited the statement of Mr. Baldwin that he found what were termed "bottle-necks" with respect to the development of some of our industries, that he found shortages here and insufficiencies there. May I say to my hon. friend and to hon. members that bottle-necks, shortages and such things are inevitable among the preparations for war. No country has escaped them, not a single country, as my hon. friend w'ell knows. The fact that there should be here and there limitations in our war effort is inevitable. The change from a peace-time economy to one of war is a tremendous change, it takes time. If my hon. friend wants to get illustrations of how difficult it has been for nations to make that transition he does not need to begin criticizing his own country's effort, but could find instances of it in every country that is engaged in this war or fears its possibilities.

My hon. friend did not Stress what, after all, was the real opinion of Mr. Baldwin, as those like myself who talked with him well know, namely, one of tremendous admiration for the war effort of this country and appreciation of the speed with which it had been carried on. Let me read just two paragraphs which my hon. friend did not quote but which I think will be sufficient to answer those he did quote. I read from the report of Mr. Baldwin's statement that appeared in the Montreal Gazette of October 2, 1940. It is a full reproduction of the article in the Times:

Nevertheless an inspection of air force, army and centres from Hamilton. Ontario, to Halifax, Nova Scotia, showed that Canada's defence establishments have been tremendously expanded in a year of war. that her programmes to aid Great Britain and to defend herself have been considerably modified, expanded and speeded since the German blitzkrieg of May and June; and that to-day the great majority of Canada's 11,315.000 people are wholeheartedly behind the dominion's war effort. That effort is now passing its preliminary planning and plant expansion stage, and with increasing speed will commence to prove a factor in the war.

And the concluding two paragraphs, summing up the essence of the whole article:

The Canadian war effort-definitely aligned with and therefore influenced and limited by the British war effort at the start of the war- is still complicated by the necessity of reconciling the needs of North American defence with the necessity of waging a war abroad. The programme, still far from its peak, was slow in starting through no fault of Canada. It is now commencing to mesh into gear, though it will still be eight to twelve months before the Canadian effort becomes a major factor in the war.

What could we ask more than that? I would be prepared to go before the Canadian people at any time and ask, everything considered, if that is not a record of which they

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

are proud. That this country should be found by a great military critic such as Mr. Baldwin is, to be a country that, as a result of its careful planning in cooperation with the British military authorities, is destined to become a major factor in the war, is as high a compliment as could be paid to any nation at a time like this. That, in a war such as that in which we are engaged, Canada may within a year become a major factor in this war, is a very high tribute indeed. We stated, at the outset, that we were planning for a long war, a war of three, possibly four years, as we were advised by the military authorities of the United Kingdom to do. If we had simply wished to win the first battle regardless of all else we might have directed all our energies to that end. It is what from some well known sources we were told we ought to do, hurry up, get multitudes of men to the other side, no matter how, get them over. You might win a first battle by such a method, but in the end you would most certainly lose the war. On the other hand by careful planning, by avoiding mistakes at the outset, by taking a long-range view instead of a short-sighted one, I believe this country is recognized to-day, in the eyes of the world, as a great force rapidly coming forward to do what the British government itself said we would do, if we put long-range plans into force, namely, make what may well be the decisive stroke for victory in the later stages of the war.

My hon. friend suggested that something should be said about Japan, something about Vichy, something about the situation in Ireland, and something about our relations with the United States. I intend to-night to touch on the latter subject at considerable length. With regard to Japan, Vichy and Ireland I think perhaps it would be just as well if I say no more this evening than what I intend to say to the house a little later on. I want to repeat what I said in speaking of the addresses that were made here on Friday last; I do not think that we can be too careful in this House of Commons about what any of us say with regard to other countries and their position at this time in the matter of war. We cannot be too careful with regard to what we say about Japan. It may sound very brave on our part here to be critical of Japan, to talk about the situation as my hon. friend did this afternoon, saying that he understood there was considerable trouble with the Japanese in British Columbia. That is not helping to win the war.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I did not

say trouble; I said it had been reported to me that there was truculence on the part of Japanese nationals out there and the government should look after them.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Truculence on the part of Japanese nationals, yes. Does my hon. friend think those words are going to help in maintaining Canadian unity, to help in the veiy critical situation existing at this moment not between Japan and Canada, but between Japan and Britain, and between Japan and some other parts of this world? The situation in British Columbia has been receiving the most careful attention of the administration. If there is an attitude on the part of any Japanese that has to be looked after there is need equally, I may say, for great caution on the part of some people in that province not to be over-zealous in their attacks on the Japanese at the present time. With all the seriousness of which I am capable I say that words spoken lightly here, however well intentioned they may be, may be read and interpreted in other countries in ways entirely different from those in which they may be read and understood here. In Canada we know when a statement is being made for a political purpose. We know, too, who the individual is who makes the statement, and whether he is given to saying things just as they come into his mind, or whether they are said after careful thought and reflection. We know, too, whether they are being said by a critical opposition, or on the responsibility of a government. But, in Japan, the morning press with its headlines does not interpret words spoken in the parliament of Canada in that way. And the same is true with regard to the situation existing in France at the present time. And the same is true with regard to critical conditions which may exist between Great Britain and Ireland. I want to tell the house very frankly that this government will take any and every step it can take to help heal any breach and to prevent any wound becoming worse than it is, but we will do nothing we have reason to believe w'ill make a bad situation in any country or between any two countries worse than it is at the present time.

Now I come to the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission. I w'ant to thank my hon. friend for his expression of agreement with the view of the administration that it is desirable to have a conference between the provinces and the dominion to consider recommendations contained in the report. I do not know that I could go the length he has gone in suggesting that this ought not only to be a conference between governments, but should be a conference at which not only the governments in office would be represented but at which oppositions, chambers of commerce, boards of trade and the like, if I understood him aright, would meet as well in a great round-table discussion. I am afraid

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

nothing would sooner end useful discussion than a huge gathering of the kind dealing with a report, particularly one of the magnitude of that presented by the Rowell-Sirois commission. No; the place to begin the consideration of that report is at a conference between the representatives of the properly constituted authorities of this country; that is, the provincial and dominion governments. If we can succeed in reaching a measure of agreement between the dominion and provincial governments in the first instance, I have not much doubt about the success that ultimately will result in regard to the changes that will have to be made later on in our constitution. But, if we cannot get that agreement at the outset, then I submit it would be folly to enlarge the number and classes of representatives to be called together to consider the report.

My hon. friend asks, "Why wait so long?" Well, if we had proceeded any sooner the criticism would have been, "Why did you go ahead so fast? You have not given us time to read the report. You have not given the provinces time to read it. Why have you brought on this conference so quickly?" I have only to mention the dates on which certain events took place to let the house see that we have brought on the conference just as quickly as it reasonably could have been expected to be brought on. In the first place the report itself was not tabled in this House of Commons until the month of May. We were then engaged in a war session. I doubt if there was a member of the ministry, or half a dozen members of the house, who had the opportunity, during that session of the house, to read the report carefully. It was August 7 before parliament adjourned. Three months have since gone by, but for a considerable time after parliament adjourned the ministry was busier than ever seeking to get along with the war effort in particulars to which it was not possible for ministers to give their attention while the house was in session. More than that, the provincial governments at that time would not have had an opportunity to peruse the report. Any reasonable person will see that in choosing the date we have chosen, in waiting until parliament met to see if we could reasonably count upon an adjournment in January, and in asking members of the provincial governments to attend at that time, we have taken the earliest possible opportunity of calling a conference to deal with so important a matter. And I am very happy to say that, by proceeding in this manner, we have been able to get the assent of the governments of all the provinces to be

represented at a conference in the month of January: That of itself, I think, is a real

achievement. While undoubtedly there will be different points of view presented, and while the provinces may differ with each other in some matters of detail of greater or less importance, I have no doubt that, after discussion, and particularly in the light of the situation with which this country and the world is faced at this time, those who attend the conference will come with a sense of responsibility, and that they will seek to do all they possibly can to keep unanimous the feeling that exists at the present time in regard to all matters pertaining to the wellbeing of our country. It is too early to speak of what may come out of the conference, but, at any rate, I think we are taking the right step at the right time and in the right way.

My hon. friend suggested that we should have special committees of the house to discuss matters having to do with the war effort. He says it is impossible to get the information desired in a formal debate in this house. Hon. members will, I believe, be surprised at the information they will receive in the course of this debate. The government will make every effort to see that the fullest possible information is given the house; and while I agree with my hon. friend that all details cannot be brought out during formal discussion, there is no reason why this house should not resolve itself later into committee of the whole and consider matters in detail as a body. However, hay hon. friend has suggested that he and some of his colleagues should meet with myself and members of the ministry to discuss what may be best. I thank him for that suggestion and wish to say that I will take pleasure in seeing that a conference between us is arranged for at an early date. That, I think, is the right way to proceed in any effort to discover what course it may be best to pursue.

I come now to the last part of my hon. friend's speech, at the close of which he moved an amendment in which something wras said to the effect that the government had been soothing the Canadian people with regard to the security of the nation. Just where my hon. friend got that idea I cannot understand. If there is one single thing above another that this administration has sought to do, it has been to have the people of Canada realize not only the magnitude of our war effort but also the tremendous seriousness of the whole situation as it exists in the world to-day. Far from trying to sootne the people in any way or to lull them, which was another expression used by my hon. friend, in regard to the nation's security, we have

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

gone to the utmost pains to have the situation as it really exists in the world fully understood.

I will not take time to-night to quote passages from various speeches to illustrate the truth of what I am saying, but I would remind my hon. friend that in the last campaign the criticism levelled against me, as leader of my party and of the government, was that I was trying to frighten the people of Canada with the war situation, that I was making the situation out infinitely worse than it then was. That was the criticism, as I think my hon. friend will recall. I have in my hand a sample of the sort of thing I said to the people at that time. It was said over the radio, so that it was heard far and wide. It does not strike me as in any way calculated to lull the country into a sense of false security. It is from a radio address delivered on February 23, of this year:

Who will say what nation is safe from attack as the fateful months roll on? It may even be that before the forces of evil are vanquished the whole world will be engulfed in the angry sea of battle.

Let us not imagine that our land will inevitably escape the wrath that darkens land and sea, or that our shores will necessarily be spared as the conflict grows and spreads. He would be a foolish man who refused to face the possibilities and realities of a shattered world.

We face a future unknown and unpredictable. We cannot tell what calamities may strike us before the present year is ended or what perils may be upon us in 1941 or 1942. Failure to view the situation as a whole, and to take account of all conceivable possibilities, might be fraught with the gravest dangers. There must be no surrender to the insistent clamour of those who refuse to look beyond the problems of the moment.

There is no lulling the country into a sense of security in words like that. And yet those are the kind of words I used during the last campaign, which returned the present House of Commons; and I have been using words similar to those ever since. May I say that I purpose answering that part of my hon. friend's amendment to-night. What he has said with reference to agriculture will be discussed by others. But I have felt increasingly the awful seriousness of the world situation as it has become-every day, every week and every month as the war has gone by. I have sometimes felt that, forced as we are to deal with questions arising from day to day, we lose a certain perspective of the trend of events. Particularly do I feel that, when picking up the morning paper and reading the headlines, listening to radio accounts from the old country and from different parts of our own, as they come in from hour to hour-accounts given in part to help to strengthen the morale of the nation-we are apt to get the impression that all is going 14873-4J

well, that we have only to wait for the moment of victory, and that, all we have to do now is to continue to talk of victory in the various speeches we make, and victory is certain to come.

I believe the British forces are going to triumph. I believe democracy will win. I feel certain that right will triumph, but I believe it is going to be a longer road, a harder road and a more terrible road than any of us even at this time begin to believe. That is what I wish to speak about to-night to this House of Commons. We have been brought here primarily to discuss the war, and particularly to discuss Canada's war effort. We are here to get a picture of the situation as it is to-day. As the people's representatives we must face the situation in its stark reality. We are here to do the best we possibly can to meet the situation, to the utmost of the nation's strength.

To present the picture as I see it, I have taken considerable pains to bring together in a form which I hope will enable hon. members to carry away in their minds the developments which have taken place in the last three months, that is to say, in the period of time between that at which parliament adjourned on August 7 last and its reassembling at the present session. I have tried to place these events in their proper setting, to disclose them in the light of events which preceded them, so that all may see the trend, and appreciate what really is in the minds of the dictators. I intend then to set out what we, as a government, have sought to do in our war effort, touching only the main points. I shall leave to my colleagues statements in detail. In dealing with our relations with the United States, I shall seek to place before hon. members what I believe has been a real contribution on the part of Canada, not only as respects our own effort toward the winning of the war, but more particularly in reference to the combined effort of the democracies in the common cause in which they are now more closely united. I shall seek in a few words to say what I feel about our war aims-or peace aims, whichever term may be considered preferable. I shall begin by outlining the international scene as it developed in the last few months.

When parliament adjourned, at the end of the first week of August, the enemy had already' established his bases along the channel coast. With France and the low countries in his power, he had begun a carefully prepared and formidable attack by air on the United Kingdom. In the months that have followed, the attack has been pressed persistently, ruthlessly and relentlessly. It has been supplemented by long range artillery

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

trained on the strait and on the streets of Dover. It has been extended to the sea, where, since August 17, the waters around the British isles, as in the unrestricted submarine warfare of 1917, have been declared by the Germans a zone of military operations.

The assault on Britain has not stopped at military objectives. It has been extended to open cities. It has indeed been deliberately aimed at the civil population, in the hope that incessant and merciless bombing will break down morale, and lead to the evacuation, in panic, of cities and towns, and to the disorganization of British industry.

Nevertheless the apprehension felt in those August days, when the savage onslaught was unloosed, and Britain stood, virtually alone in Europe, to face the German hordes, and the unknown destructiveness of unlimited air war, has been dissipated for the time being at least. It has been dissipated by the magnificent skill and courage of British airmen, and by the determination of the whole population to let no attack, however ferocious or long sustained, deter them from their purpose. Not only is their purpose that of defending Britain; it has been from the outset and will continue to be that of freeing their fallen allies, and, ultimately, of removing the menace of nazi domination from Europe and the world.

The battle for the mastery of the air over Britain still goes on. Long, grim months of siege, with constant threat of death from the skies, still lie ahead. Nevertheless the numerical superiority which the nazis enjoyed throughout the summer and early autumn, and which, indeed, they still enjoy, is gradually but surely being whittled down. Greater losses by the enemy of pilots and planes, combined with a smaller relative production are beginning to tell their tale.

The British army has been reorganized, reequipped, and strengthened by fresh divisions and reinforcements from the dominions overseas. The Royal Navy has been strengthened by flotillas of destroyers from this side of the Atlantic. The whole country bristles with defences. After months of waiting, the German army of invasion remains impotent to cross the narrow seas that separate it from Britain's shores. In spite of all her suffering and losses Britain is stronger, and stronger by far, than when we separated in midsummer.

Members of the government of the United Kingdom have referred repeatedly in the most appreciative terms to Canada's contribution to the strengthening of the British defences. On September 17, Lord Caldecote, speaking in the House of Lords, referred to what he termed:

. . . the invaluable cooperation and assistance which we are receiving from the dominions in the common trouble.

He said:

It is well known that the defences of this country include very substantial land forces from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These forces are at present available to repel invasion, should invasion come. There are also with us units of the Royal Canadian Navy and a naval contingent from New Zealand. In the air it is common knowledge that a Canadian fighter squadron has helped us immediately to increase the enemy's losses, and we have had invaluable assistance from a unit of the Royal Australian Air Force. More recently we have welcomed an air contingent from southern Rhodesia. In our own Royal Air Force, there are many pilots from all the dominions and indeed from all parts of the empire. Newfoundland also has made a most substantial and indeed a remarkable contribution to the forces defending the British isles by sea and by land.

As recently as October 30, the present Secretary of State for the Dominions, Lord Cranborne, told an audience that thousands of Canadian troops were waiting in Britain with eager impatience for a chance to deal faithfully with Hitler's forces of invasion. He referred also to the Canadian destroyers which were in close cooperation with the Royal Navy. The following day the British Undersecretary for War, Lord Croft, who fought beside our Canadian troops in the last war, visited the units of the Canadian active service force at present in the United Kingdom, and told them that the British army council was extremely proud of having fine Canadian formations cooperating with the great army being built up in Britain. Lord Croft also praised our Canadian airmen and added these significant words:

When the river of supplies of pilots from the great imperial camps in Canada turns to flood, air ascendancy will be won.

Everyone senses the improvement in Britain's position. The enemj^'s hope of a quick victory has been shattered on the rock of British resistance. He is now turning his attention in considerable measure to other regions, and to the maintenance of his supply of foodstuffs, of oil, and of other materials necessitated by a war of attrition. His great aim now is to break the stranglehold of the British blockade. At the same time, he is seeking to blockade the United Kingdom. Already destruction at sea by the U-boat has become a peril to Britain greater even than that of bombardment from the air.

Coincident with Germany's concentration on the battle of Britain and the consolidation of her gains in the west, events of far-reaching importance have been happening in eastern Europe. The Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia ind Lithuania have been taken over by the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

soviets and with them a rich portion of Roumania, the provinces of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. Sensing a shift in the wind, Roumania adopted the trappings of fascism and renounced the British guarantee. Her conversion, however, came too late. At the end of August, following a conference at Vienna, she was brusquely forced to cede half of Transylvania to Hungary and, some weeks later, southern Dobruja to Bulgaria. These renunciations of territories did not save her. Working characteristically, through disaffected elements in the population, the n-azis succeeded in bringing Roumania entirely within their orbit. They secured complete control over her wheat, corn and soya bean fields and, most important of all, her oil wells and refineries. These without doubt they will exploit to the full. German garrisons are already installed in the more important towns. A German military mission is reported to be organizing the Roumanian army on the German model. In Hungary, Jugoslavia and Bulgaria, nazi policy is developing the closest possible economic collaboration. Already, however, these countries are finding that such collaboration involves political control as well.

At the other end of Europe the enemy is following a similar policy. Spain, like Italy at the beginning, has declared for nonbelligerency, instead of neutrality. For the present, however, so far as Spain is concerned, the enemy seems to have been obliged to content himself with economic rather than military collaboration.

The position of France is more difficult and more tragic. I shall speak later of it and of our relations with our once powerful ally. All I wish to point out at the moment, or rather to emphasize, is that the prestige of the smashing German victory in the west has placed almost all of Europe west of the Vistula under German control. All the ports and air fields from Norway to Spain are in nazi hands. The resources, human and material, of these countries will be organized with German method and thoroughness in German interests alone. A formidable war potential has been placed in the hands of a ruthless enemy. It is all important that everyone should realize how vastly, as compared with the last war and the early days of the present conflict, this new augmentation of nazi military power increases the difficulties which we of the British commonwealth have to face.

To indicate what I have in mind I shall speak of only one or two important commodities. Steel production is the standard index of industrial capacity. The annual

production of steel in Germany was estimated at the beginning of hostilities at 22 million tons. With the countries she has conquered or controls, and making considerable allowance for war damage in France and Belgium, German capacity for steel production now amounts annually to 42 million tons. This is to be compared with a capacity of about 18 million tons in Great Britain and other parts of the British empire. Supplies of iron ore, so difficult for Germany to secure in the early days of the war by the precarious route through Narvik from the Swedish mines, have now become plentiful through easy access to the neighbouring mines of Luxemburg and Lorraine. Hitherto short of aluminium, so vital for the manufacture of aeroplanes, the German factories now have access to the French bauxite mines, among the richest in the world, while our own supply is correspondingly diminished. We must face the fact that control of these resources represents a powerful addition to the effective strength arrayed against us. We must also face the fact that Germany has now the great munition plants of Skoda and Creusot, as well as Krupp at her disposal. Let us not underestimate the enemy. It is in the light of facts such as these I have mentioned that we see the significance of aid from the United States with its capacity for steel production of 50,000,000 tons a year.

There are, of course, weaknesses in the imposing nazi facade. Pillage, however systematic and well organized, cannot go on indefinitely. Subject populations, if they are to give even passive acquiescence to the designs of the conqueror, -must be left with sufficient supplies on which to exist and to work. There are a good many essential commodities such as copper, manganese, nickel and cryolite, which even the whole of Europe cannot supply in adequate quantities. Moreover, the scope of the enemy's conquests has given, as I have already indicated, a new urgency to a problem that was already vital, namely, the problem of oil. Roumanian wells, even if the Germans are permitted to exploit them undisturbed, can, it is estimated, hardly produce more than five, or at the most, six million tons a year. AM the rest of Europe outside of Russia can produce but another five -million tons, and Russian supplies and ability to transport them are problematical. Europe's requirements for essential industries and transportation, however, are twice the amount of her total production. With supplies cut off by the blockade, it is not difficult to understand the new interest of the enemy in Iraq and Iran, or the drive for control of the Mediterranean basin.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

In this region the defection of France and her African colonies created an unexpected and exceedingly embarrassing naval and military position. Any withdrawal of British forces from the Mediterranean was obviously impossible, first, because of British commitments to Greece and Turkey; second, because of the importance of holding the Suez canal; and, finally, because the enemy's route to the pipe line at Haifa and the supposedly inexhaustible oil supplies of the middle east lies across the eastern Mediterranean.

These circumstances explain why Italy, a few weeks ago, suddenly discovered that Greece had made provocative attacks on Albania, the territory Mussolini treacherously attacked on a Good Friday eighteen months ago. The Italian attack upon Greece and the decision of the Greeks to resist have made a further demand upon Britain. Despite the threat of one powerful army across the English channel, and another powerful army in the Egyptian desert, Britain is responding as best she can to this new demand. There has already been established on the island of Crete a naval and air base which will extend the radius of the activities of the British navy and air force in the eastern Mediterranean.

The British position in Africa and the middle east was calculated on the basis of the existence of French armies in Syria, Tunis, Algeria and Morocco, on the cooperation of the French navy, and on the joint use of French naval and air bases. The collapse of French resistance destroyed these calculations and presented the British with what appeared an almost hopeless problem. The Italian army in Libya greatly outnumbered the British forces in Egypt, and there seemed a real danger that it would march across the desert to the Nile, and even to Suez. All through the months of threatened invasion of Britain, the policy of reinforcing the British army in Egypt has gone forward. To-day the balance of forces is much less favourable to Italy than it was in August. At the same time it should not be forgotten that in the area the Italians still have numerical superiority. Their attack upon Greece may be designed in part to draw off British troops from Egypt to assist the Greeks and thus to improve the Italian position in the western desert of Egypt.

The battle of Britain, the nazi pressure on the Balkans, the apparent stalemate in Africa, the Italian attack upon Greece have not been the only events on the international scene since parliament adjourned. The axis powers have also sought by diplomacy, propaganda and intrigue to isolate Britain, and to begin a process of piecemeal destruction of her power and possessions. The pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan at Berlin on September 27

cannot be viewed as other than an instrument to that end. It contains articles providing for recognition of the respective conquests and spheres of influence of these powers-an open avowal of their existing attitudes towards one another. Article 3, however, goes much farther. It provides that the three axis powers will:

. . . _ assist one another with all political,

economic, and military means, if one of the high contracting parties should be attacked by a power not at present involved in the European war or in the Sino-Japanese conflict.

A subsequent article provides that this commitment does not affect the relations which exist between the three contracting parties and soviet Russia. Significantly, no mention is made of the United States. The whole agreement, and the publicity given to it, however, are obviously aimed at intimidating the United States. No matter how clear it may be that freedom and the democratic way of life everywhere are bound up with the fate of Britain, the United States are to be prevented from moving any closer to Britain's side.

The role of Japan in the new alliance is particularly significant. Germany and Italy have formally recognized Japanese leadership in creating a "new order" in east Asia. Within the sphere of this new order lie French IndoChina and the Netherlands East Indies. The mother countries of those two rich colonies are occupied to-day by German troops. French Indo-China, by the agreement of Hanoi of September 27, opened its gates to Japanese troops in circumstances that strongly suggest German pressure. We may expect further demands on French Indo-China.

The Chinese army, although split up into small and widely scattered groups, is still actively resisting. The 710 miles of highway known as the Burma road was, as is known, closed to the transport to China of gasoline, trucks and munitions. This was intended as an approach to Japan, which it was hoped might facilitate a possible termination of hostilities in the far east. The closing of the Burma road having failed to accomplish its purpose, it was reopened on October 18. The embargo on the export of gasoline and petroleum products, and on iron and steel scrap, established by the government of the United States at the beginning of August, is in force. No scrap iron, or steel has been exported from Canada since October, 1039. There has not been any export, except to the United Kingdom, the allied countries and the United States, of nickel or zinc since February, of aluminium since April, and of cobalt since August last. On October 8 the same limitations were placed upon exports of copper. Shipments of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

other metals and minerals from Canada to destinations outside the British empire and the western hemisphere have been kept within the limits of our normal peace-time trade with the other countries concerned.

The formation of the triple axis has, without doubt, contributed to international tension, particularly in the far east. It has not, however, served either to intimidate the United States, or to isolate Britain. Indeed, its effect has been the exact opposite. There has been a marked stiffening of policies both of the United States and of Britain in the far east, and an intensification of sentiment in the United 'States in support of aid for Britain.

I have endeavoured to review the developments on the international scene since the adjournment of the house in midsummer. I wish now to say something of their significance-of what they reveal of the designs of the enemy. The events of the past few months make it clearer than ever that the immediate aim of Germany is a new world order, based upon spheres of influence to be controlled by nazi Germany and her axis partners. Hitler plans, foy holding out specious hopes of collaboration, to secure the participation of the subject peoples in the elaboration of his grand design. This is the subtle method by which he is supplementing aggression in his effort to achieve 'world domination.

Nazi intrigue and the deceptive cloak of collaboration fail, however, to conceal the underlying tyranny of force and fear on which the structure of the new order is to rest. It becomes more apparent, with each new development, that we are engaged in a titanic and terrible death struggle between two conflicting philosophies of life. On the one side is tyranny; on the other, democracy. On the one side, brutality and slavery; on the other, humanity and freedom. On the one side, the law of force; on the other, the force of law.

I should like to recall to the house the words I used in this place, on September 8, 1939, at the outset of this struggle which many still regarded as no more than another European war. These were my words:

No, Mr. Speaker, the ambition of this dictator is not Poland. At one time he said it was only the areas in which there were Germanspeaking people. But we have seen thatambition grow. That may have been thethought in his mind some years ago, but we all know how ambition feeds upon itself; we all know how the lust for power blinds men's senses to all else. We know where and how he started, first with the militarization of theRhineland. He then said-I quote Hitler's own words-he had no thought of annexing Austria. After giving his word that there

would be no further attempt at conquest, he took Czechoslovakia. Then he took Moravia and Bohemia, then Memel, now Danzig and Poland. Where is he creeping to? Into those communities of the north, some of which to-day say they are going to remain neutral. I tell them if they remain neutral in this struggle, and Britain and France go down, there is not one of them that will bear for long the name that it bears at the present time; not one of them. And if this conquerer by his methods of force, violence and terror, and other ruthless iniquities is able to crush the peoples of Europe, what is going to become of the doctrine of isolation of this North American continent? If Britain goes down, if France goes down, the whole business of isolation will prove to have been a mere myth. There will in time be no freedom on this continent; there will in time be no liberty. Life will not be worth living. It is for all of us on this continent to do our part to save its privileged position by helping others.

That does not sound, Mr. Speaker, very much like trying to lull and soothe the Canadian people into a sense of security. And that statement was made in this house on the 8th of September last year.

At the close of the last war, there was an attempt to build up a genuine world order based on international law and international justice. The democratic nations tried, with many failures, with many weaknesses, and, perhaps at times, with too little conviction, to maintain the relations between nations on a basis of respect for the pledged word and the solemn covenant. They may, on occasion, have failed to grasp opportunities for reconciliation, but there can be no doubt of their genuine desire for the preservation of peace.

Unhappily, love of peace and respect for justice were not shared by all nations, or, at least, not by all governments. From the Japanese attack on Manchuria in 1931 to the nazi attack on Poland in 1939, the world witnessed a steady progression of successful acts of aggression. Each of the aggressor nations has, in turn, through withdrawal from the League of Nations, expressed open contempt for the condemnation of world opinion, for the principles of international law and for the rights of other nations.

From the moment that Hitler achieved power in Germany, the tempo of aggression increased. Germany herself began to rearm. In 1934, through the murder of Dollfus, she began to undermine the independence of Austria. In 1935, Italy attacked Ethiopia. Germany took advantage of the Ethiopian crisis to remilitarize the Rhineland. In 1936, the civil war broke out in Spain. Immediately the totalitarian powers began their sinister intervention in that struggle. In 1937 the present conflict between Japan and China began at the moment when the Spanish civil

4S

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

war threatened to embroil the whole of Europe. On March 15, 1938, the nazis marched into Austria. In September of that year Europe was almost plunged into war by the Sudeten crisis, which ended at Munich. In March, 1939, Germany seized the rest of Czechoslovakia and, a few days later, she took Memel. On Good Friday, 1939, the Italians occupied and annexed Albania. Finally, on September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland.

While at first these acts of aggression were unrelated and unconnected, they began gradually to assume a pattern and to be based on a time-table, which point to a conspiracy for world domination. The conspiracy was half avowed by the formation of the so-called anti-comintern pact, ostensibly directed against the menace of communism; but, as we can now see, it was in reality a conspiracy for the destruction of freedom in the world. Individual bandits, acting alone, became gangsters acting in concert.

The formation of the Rome-Berlin axis was an open threat to the peace of the world. But, so long as Hitler had reason to believe that Russia and the western democracies might be combined against him, he was not ready to risk actual war. His great moment came with the conclusion of the nazi-soviet non-aggression pact in August of 1939. The preliminary phase had ended. The unfolding of the nazi world order was about to begin.

The first act in the new development was the conquest of Poland, and the destruction, with unexampled ferocity, of the Polish state. In the conquest of Poland the nazis for the first time used actual force rather than the threat of force to attain their ends. The brutality of their conduct in the subjugation of the Poles was designed not merely to crush that unhappy land but to strike terror into the hearts of all the peoples of Europe, and to paralyze their will to resist nazi domination.

In the destruction of Poland, soviet Russia participated. In the weeks that followed the conquest of Poland, the soviet government successfully extended its domination by threat of force to the smaller Baltic nations: Lithuania, Latvia and Esthonia. With Finland, the same tactics were not successful. It was just a year ago that the Russians invaded Finland and, after a bitter winter campaign, broke the resistance of that heroic people and partitioned their country.

The next blow was struck, suddenly and swiftly, by the nazis on April 9, when they occupied Denmark, almost without firing a shot, and simultaneously attacked and occupied all the principal cities of Norway. Just a month later, on May 10, came the great

(Mr. Mackenzie King.]

onslaught in the west. In a few days Luxemburg, Holland and Belgium had been overrun. Barely five weeks had passed when French resistance collapsed, and the French government was seeking an armistice.

With the collapse of France, practically the whole of Europe, west of Russia, lay prostrate at the feet of Hitler and his Italian ally, who, on the eve of the fall of France, had joined him in the war. The military machine of the nazis seemed, in June, well nigh invincible. Britain stood alone in the path of the onward march of the conquerors. There she stands still; the one obstacle left in the way of the establishment, in the old world, of the new nazi order.

What Hitler has failed to accomplish by fear or force-the destruction of Britain-he has now set about attempting to effect by intrigue and guile. A new world order, based upon spheres of influence to be controlled by nazi Germany and her axis partners, is now the immediate aim. This is the subtle method by which, as the ultimate end of aggression, Germany hopes to attain world domination. Through the alliance between Japan and the axis in Europe the new order in Asia has been linked to the new order in Europe. The pattern is now plain. The world, as I have said, is to be divided into spheres of influence. Germany and her greater vassals are to dominate a world of lesser vassals. The new order in Asia and the islands of the Pacific is domination by Japan. The new order in Europe is domination by Germany. The new order in the Mediterranean and in Africa is joint domination by Germany and Italy. The areas to be dominated by the soviets would appear, at the moment, to be a subject for further negotiation. By promises of collaboration, Hitler and Mussolini are seeking to beguile France and Spain.

The subject peoples will be the menials of the new lords of creation. Their economies will be economies that satisfy the greed of their masters; their farmers will be peasants, and their workers, slaves. The new nazi order is not in fact a new order at all. It is a return to despotism and the age-old tyranny against which mankind has ever struggled in its upward march.

I turn now from the international scene to a review of the salient features in our national war effort in the period since parliament adjourned on August 7 last. Tire house will not expect me to give the picture in detail. That task will be undertaken, as the debate proceeds, by the ministers in charge of the several departments. The wish of the government is to inform parliament and the country just as completely as military exigencies will permit.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

In my review I shall deal first with armed in council, P.C. 2685, setting out the proper training, then with munitions and supply, labour and our war finances, in that order.

First the army. In the review he gave on July 29 last, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) told the house that the total strength of the Canadian active service force on July 21 was 133,573 officers and men. This figure had risen by November 6 to 167,417, which represents an increase of 33,844.

At that time, the strength outside Canada was 31,607. This has now risen to 52,093. The strength of the Canadian active service force in Canada on November 6 was 115,324.

The first division is an integral part of the army corps which, under the command of Lieutenant-General McNaughton, has taken its place in the defence of Britain. The second division is completing its training in preparation for incorporation in this corps which will then become a Canadian unit.

Canadian troops continue to share in the garrisoning of Iceland and of the British insular possessions in this hemisphere.

In Canada, apart from troops on garrison and other special duties across the country, and units still in training, the Canadian active service force has been grouped under two coastal commands, one for the Atlantic and one for the Pacific. The troops in Newfoundland are under the Atlantic command.

An armoured brigade of * four Canadian active service force tank regiments was recently formed. Two hundred tanks have been secured in the United States for use in training this mechanized force.

No review of the activities of the army during recent months would be complete without reference to the 65,000 officers and men of the non-permanent active militia who, during the summer, gave up their time and frequently their holidays, to training in the militia camps to prepare, if the need should arise, to take their part in defending the country.

I should like, too, to pay a tribute to the officers and men on both our coasts who, throughout the year, are engaged in garrison duty which has so little of seeming glory and so much of loneliness, but which is essential to our national security.

Since the collapse of France, there has been little action for armies in this war. We cannot assume this will continue to be true. What we do know is that action may be precipitated at any moment, and that the nazis will never be finally defeated until armies have played their active part. They must be trained, equipped and ready for that day.

Since the outbreak of war, the development of our small Canadian navy has been little

short of phenomenal. Even in the last three months its personnel has risen from about

9,000 at the beginning of August to 13,034 on November 7.

At the beginning of August we had about 130 vessels in commission, excluding destroyers. By the end of October the number had risen to over 140 and as well seventeen corvettes and four minesweepers of our new construction had already been launched. In the same period, thanks to the arrangement concluded with the United States, our destroyer strength has doubled. We now have twelve destroyers in commission.

It is a tribute at once to the efficiency of our naval service and to the eagerness of Canadians to volunteer for the defence of their country that no difficulty has been found in enlisting crews for the new vessels. Indeed, there are far more young Canadians eager to join the navy than the navy with its present establishment can possibly take.

Some of our destroyers are still participating in European waters in the defence of Britain against the threat of invasion. Our navy, too, continues its vigilant patrol of our own coasts and takes its part in the vital task of keeping open the life-lines of Britain across the north Atlantic.

It was a source of particular satisfaction for Canadians to learn of the gallant exploit of the converted merchant cruiser Prince Robert in capturing the German merchant vessel Weser off the Pacific coast of Mexico.

With regard to the air force and air training, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) told the house last July that on July 24 the Royal Canadian Air Force numbered 1,765 officers and 17,688 men, or 19,453 in all. By November 2 these numbers had risen to 2,343 officers and 28,256 men, or a total of 30,599. This represents an increase of over fifty per cent. In addition, 3,187 men had enlisted for training as air crews at the beginning of August. On November 2 this number had reached 6,884.

The Royal Canadian Air Force continues to perform its threefold task. Its home defence squadrons continue their constant patrols over our coasts and coastal waters. They take their part in the escort of convoys to and from our shores.

Our air force too has shared in the battle of Britain. Since the house adjourned, our Canadian fighter squadron, flying planes produced in Canada, has engaged with memorable success in active combat with the enemy. The main energies of the Royal Canadian Air Force continue to be directed largely to the development of the British commonwealth air training plan.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

The gigantic proportions of the air training plan are now beginning to be appreciated by the public. At the beginning of August, twenty-four of the training schools had been opened. By the end of October, thirty-six were in operation. To put it another way, throughout that period an average of one school a week was started.

On September 26 the Minister of National Defence for Air welcomed at Vancouver the first detachment of Australian pupils who had come to Canada for their advanced training.

Until recently, progress reports on the air training plan had been confined to announcements of new construction, of new schools opened, and of increases in personnel. I am happy to be able to report that the plan is already beginning to realize the ultimate purpose for which it is designed. The first group of air observers to be trained under the plan completed their training on October 24. In years to come October 24 may well become a historic date in the history of the struggle for freedom.

The progress which has been made in the air training programme has been warmly commended by the British government. Hon. members will perhaps be interested in one or two of the statements which have been made. In reply to a question about the progress of the plan the British Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, told the House of Commons on August 20 last:

I do not think I ought to give figures, but I will tell the house this, to show that substantial progress is being made. Whereas we were expecting to reach a certain figure of pilot production from Canada in July, or even as late as August, of next year, we shall reach that figure by April. I think that that will convince the house that more rapid progress than we were led to expect is being made with the empire air training scheme. Let me say how grateful the government are for the energy, the enterprise and the drive which the Canadian government and the Canadian air staff, with the assistance of Air Viee-Marshal McKean who represents us there, have thrown into this empire air training scheme.

The parliamentary under-secretary of the air ministry, Captain H. H. Balfour, visited Canada at the beginning of September. In an interview to the press at the conclusion of his visit he used these words:

I am more than impressed with the progress made here on the empire air training scheme.

Just the other day the present Secretary of State for the Dominions, Lord Cranborne, said in a speech in London that the empire air training scheme when in full operation was designed to produce twenty thousand pilots and thirty thousand air crews yearly, and he added these significant words:

It is months ahead of schedule.

Hon. members will recall that at the time the British government proposed this great undertaking it indicated that with the facilities which Canada possessed this cooperative effort might prove to be of a most essential and decisive character. It is therefore a source of no little satisfaction to the government, as I am sure it will be to the house and to the country, to have the assurance that the plan is more than meeting the expectations of the British government.

Any review, however brief, of Canada's war effort, demands a reference to the losses which our armed forces have sustained. The nature of the war itself has hitherto fortunately spared us from heavy casualties. Our troops, twice under orders to proceed to the front, were denied actual participation in battle, first by the withdrawal from Norway, and next by the collapse of France. The restriction of active warfare, since the fall of France, to Britain and the waters surrounding the British isles, and the comparative rarity of naval engagements, have combined to restrict our losses on land and at sea. In the air up to the present the heat and burden of battle have been largely borne by British pilots.

Our main losses have been at sea. Canada has lost three armed ships, the destroyer H.M.C.S. Fraser, with a loss of forty-seven ratings; the destroyer H.M.C.S. Margaree, with a loss of four officers and 136 ratings; and the armed trawler H.M.C.S. Bras d'Or, with a loss of five officers and twenty-five ratings. In addition to these some twenty-four officers and ratings have been lost in active service from various causes. The total of the lives lost at sea up to the end of October was 241. These figures do not include the losses of Canadian merchant seamen, of which I regret to say no accurate figures are at present available. I should like here to say just a word about the sinking of the Empress o) Britain. Although she was requisitioned by the admiralty at the beginning of the war, and was not serving as a Canadian ship, her many associations with Canada were such that the shock of her loss brought the reality of war particularly close.

It has been my sad duty to express to the next of kin of the brave men who have died at sea the sympathy, gratitude and pride of the Canadian people. In all such expressions which have been made and in those which may be made I know that every member of this house will wish most sincerely to join.

Our two major losses at sea have been due to tragic accidents of war. The men who lost their lives in the sinking of the Fraser and the Margaree and the foundering of the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

Bras d'Or, and the merchant sailors who have faced all the dangers of the ocean, made more perilous by a ruthless foe, have died as heroes in their country's cause.

In the air, up to and including the end of October, we have lost in the Royal Canadian Air Force twenty-seven officers and forty-one airmen in Canada. Outside Canada we have lost five officers and two airmen. In addition to these casualties, 203 Canadians serving with the Royal Air Force have lost their lives on active service.

The men who have lost their lives in the training schools have sacrificed themselves for their comrades who will carry on their traditions in the skies of battle. Their gallantry will long be remembered in our land.

The Canadian army has lost by death in action, death from wounds, from disaster, accident and misadventure, 16S officers and men. To all who remain to fight on sea, on land and in the air, it behooves every man, woman and child in the country to dedicate every hour of labour which may be necessary in order that our sailors, our soldiers and our airmen may be fully equipped to face the perils that lie before them. They deserve at our hands the best machines, the best material, the best care that money and honest labour can provide. We know how nobly and courageously they will acquit themselves. We do not doubt them. They must have no reason to doubt us.

May I now say a word about national registration. This gigantic task was the first undertaking of the Department of National War Services after its creation on July 12. I do not need to tell hon. members how promptly, how vigorously and how efficiently the registration was organized, or how smoothly and efficiently the machinery for registration worked on August 19, 20 and 21. I want, however, to express to hon. members of all parties and groups the warm appreciation that the government feels for their effective cooperation in this great national task. The cost of the registration itself was kept at a minimum owing to the enthusiastic response of citizens in all walks of life to the call for voluntary unpaid assistance in carrying through this great survey of Canada's human resources. The response of our people to this first universal call to duty was magnificent.

Rapid progress is being made in the tabulation of the results of the national registration in order to provide a complete picture of Canada's resources of man power to meet the many and varying calls for war-time service. The government did not await completion of the laborious task of tabulation before getting under way the immediate purpose of the national registration. The first task undertaken, when the registration itself had been completed, was the preparation of the lists which have since been used for the national mobilization for basic military training of single men and childless widowers between the ages of nineteen and forty-five.

The training itself has also got under way with amazing despatch. While the Department of National War Services was engaged in preparing the lists of men to be called for service, and setting up the thirteen national war service boards, the training camps themselves were being prepared to receive the men. Critics said it could never be done in the time set by the government. But it was done, thanks to the untiring efforts of the officials and officers of the departments of National Defence and of Munitions and Supply, and the invaluable cooperation of the construction industry. On the 13th day of September a proclamation was issued calling out men for military training in the 21, 22 and 23 year old class. Shortly afterwards the registrars of the national war service boards sent out the first call for training. In response to the first call 27,559 men appeared at the training camps. After a second medical examination 2,034 of these men were rejected. The rest of the men have now completed their first period of training.

The national training scheme has taken the form recommended by the military advisers of the government. The present period of training was, to some extent, determined by the present availability of equipment. The experience which has been gained, and will be gained, by the men who are called up under its provisions will be of advantage both to the armed services and to the young men who have been called up for this branch of national service. It is providing an opportunity for a careful estimate to be made of the individual capacities of our young men, to determine their aptitude for service in the army, the navy, the air force, and war industry. As time goes on, it will also mean that those who enlist for active service, having had that basic training, will be able to complete their additional training more quickly and more efficiently. The men who have been called up have responded with an alacrity and an enthusiasm that have made us all proud of those to whose loyalty and strength the future of our country is being entrusted.

The most graphic index of the progress made in furnishing needed munitions and other war supplies and equipment is perhaps the total of war contracts let. On August 12 we had

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

awarded for the account of Canada contracts to the total amount of $302,000,000. By November 4, that amount had been increased to more .than $443,000,000. Of the $443,000,000 worth of contracts, 87 per cent have been placed in Canada, 8 per cent in the United Kingdom, and 5 per cent in the United States. In addition to these amounts, Canadian industry had undertaken as of September 3, 1940, total contracts from the government of the United Kingdom in the amount of $134,000,000 for equipment and supplies, and commitments have been made by the United Kingdom for capital expenditure of an additional $81,000,000. The figure of $443,000,000 which I mentioned a few minutes ago represents contracts for the delivery of munitions, supplies and equipment. We have also made commitments for capital expenditures in the form of plant construction and extensions to the amount of $235,000,000. These capital commitments include: Fifteen explosive and chemical plants at a total cost of $70,000,000; twenty-five armament plants at a cost of $66,000,000; forty ammunition plants at a cost of $36,000,000; additions to automotive plants at a cost of $5,000,000. Further details and subdivisions of these expenditures will be given by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe).

The production of aircraft in Canada in the three months from July to the end of September increased more than three hundred per cent over the preceding three months. This rapid acceleration of production is still continuing. In the production of munitions, some seventy companies are now at work on orders; some forty-four plants are now engaged in the manufacture of gauges. On the 10th October of this year the Minister of Munitions and Supply announced that designs had been approved of a new type of tank, and that preparations were under way to manufacture 3,000 of them in Canada.

I have tried in very brief form to fix at the given specified dates the increased momentum of our war production. The curve is rising with remarkable rapidity. In addition to providing for our own requirements the Department of Munitions and Supply is, as the house is aware, responsible for placing orders and securing supplies for the British government in Canada. Hon. members will be pleased to know that our efforts in this regard have received enthusiastic commendation. The Right Hon. Herbert Morrison, then Minister of Supply in the United Kingdom, gave an interview to the London Evening Standard on September 16 in which he said:

If ever I was tempted to indulge in a mental slump-which I seldom am, being an incurable

optimist-I immediately think of what Canada is doing and going to do. That is more than enough to knock the bottom out of any fit of blues.

In the same interview he added that Canada already had been equal to all the demands made upon her, and he referred specifically to the "colossal"-that is his own word- quantities Canada had supplied of timber, non-ferrous metals, steel and aluminium. He concluded with words which I believe every Canadian will echo. "Whatever the demands of the future may be," he said, "I am sure of one thing-Canada will be there."

War production depends upon keeping up ample supplies of raw materials, and upon the organization of industry for new production. It equally depends upon skilled labour. Industrial employment in Canada has already reached a level never attained before in our history. Labour has extended its hours, surrendered its holidays, and in its determination to increase and advance production has taught the young and the inexperienced the intricacies of complicated trades. It will be the duty of the people of Canada, realizing these things now, to remember them in the hour of victory.

I shall conclude my account of Canada's war effort by a very brief summary of our war finance. I need not remind the house of the principles on which the government has decided that our war effort should, as far as possible, be financed. We have relied upon taxation and upon domestic borrowing. Even if we desired to use them, foreign markets are not at present available.

In the first twelve months of the war our expenditure was $290,000,000, or about $800,000 a day. The collapse of the resistance to the nazi offensive on the continent of Europe and the elimination thereby of many of the protective factors of time and space, were followed by an immediate increase in our financial and material responsibility. The result w'as a rapid and progressive rise in our war-time expenditures. In June and July we were spending about one and a third million dollars a day; in August, nearly two million dollars a day. In the month of September we spent $66,000,000; in October our war expenditures were over $81,000,000. The October expenditures were at the rate of almost a billion dollars a year.

Our revenues fortunately are at the highest level in Canada's history. Our second war loan of $300,000,000 was oversubscribed. Its subscription was broadly based. It was not unduly concentrated in the hands of banks and financial institutions, but many thousands of small investors rallied to its support. More than one million war savings certificates have

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

been issued with an average holding of approximately $25 each. The original objective of $50,000,000 in the first year has been raised to $122,000,000. We have recently concluded arrangements with the United Kingdom to repurchase Canadian securities to the amount of $109,000,000 to provide the United Kingdom with Canadian funds for war purchases in Canada.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) will, of course, give a detailed report of our war finances. I should, however, not like to conclude this brief survey without pointing out that, thanks in no small measure to the excellent work of the Foreign Exchange Control Board there has been no major disturbance in the international exchange position in so far as it affects Canada. Equally, due to the splendid services performed by the War-time Prices and Trade Board, there have been no undue burdens placed upon Canadian consumers.

Before turning to another aspect of my subject, I should like to remind the house that the only limits the government is prepared to place upon Canada's war effort are those imposed by the extent of our resources, both human and material, and by our capacity for sacrifice. We will make financially possible, the utmost effort the people of Canada are physically and morally capable of making.

The policy of the government in this respect was clearly set forth by the present Minister of National Defence when, as Minister of Finance, he brought down the budget on June 24. Let me repeat his words:

I need hardly say that our war effort is not in any sense to be limited by any such financial calculations or by what we can comfortably accomplish. We must make the maximum effort of which this country is capable. Financial provision can be made and will be made for whatever it is physically possible for us to produce or to procure in the way of war services, supplies and materials. The limits of our effort are not fiscal; if there are any such limits they are physical, mental and moral- by that I mean the physical limits of our resources and the mental and moral capacity of Canadians to bear burdens and make sacrifices.

A similar statement of government policy was made by the present Minister of Finance at the close of the review he gave the house of our war finances on July 30, when he said:

See that Canada does her utmost-on the land, on the sea and in the air-and the cost, in so far as money can meet it, will be gladly and proudly paid.

I wish now to speak of Canada's relations, and indeed of the relations of the whole British commonwealth, with the United States, in the period under review. Before discussing these relations, I should like to say a word

about how much our own Canadian war effort owes to the cooperation of the United States. Aircraft and tanks for training purposes, and destroyers for active service, are outstanding among the many essentials of warfare which the United States has so generously made available to Canada. The president's announcement on Friday last of the priorities being given to Britain and ourselves is only the most recent example of United States assistance magnanimously given to the United Kingdom and to Canada. Every member of the house will, I am sure, join with me in an expression of our appreciation and gratitude.

When history comes to record the time and place at which the onward sweep of nazi aggression was halted, and the tide of war turned, that place and time will be found,

I believe, to be the English channel, during the months of August and September. Just as the evacuation of Dunkirk will remain a chapter unsurpassed in the history7 of British arms on land, on sea and in the air, so the indomitable resistance of Britain, the stout-hearts of the people of London, the unflagging skill and daring of the young men in the air. and the unceasing vigilance of the navy will mark the supreme moment in the present world conflict when tyranny was halted in its threatening course, and despair was changed to hope.

There remains little doubt that when French resistance collapsed last June, the government of France and her military leaders believed that not only France but also Britain was doomed. In their despair, they thought that the nazi onslaught was irresistible and that Britain, too, would crumble before the might of the German attack. The terms of the French surrender and much that has happened since can be understood only in the light of this conviction of nazi invincibility.

Nor w7ere the French alone in this appalling belief. It was generally held on the continent of Europe and, to a surprising degree, even in the United States. Public attention there became concentrated on the extent of American preparedness to meet the threat to this hemisphere which would follow the defeat of Britain. The myth of isolation was dissolved in an almost frenzied preoccupation with self-preservation. In order to meet the requirements of United States defences on land and sea and in the air, a movement of opinion developed even to the length of urging the retention in America of supplies of equipment and munitions desperately needed by Britain. Ominous rumours spread and gained credence that Britain could not hold out.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

But Britain did hold out, and held out magnificently. The world's vision cleared, Great Britain stood forth as she has through the centuries, an impregnable fortress of freedom. On this side of the ocean despair vanished. The English channel came to be viewed as the first line of defence of the United States and of the new world. This break in the encircling gloom, this dawn of fresh hope on the horizon, inspired in the United States a new desire to do all that was possible, short of actual war, to aid Britain in her resistance, and in her determination to destroy the enemies of freedom.

The practical expression of that new hope was a steadily increasing supply of planes and guns and munitions and other essentials of war from the factories of the United States to the battlefield of Britain and the training fields of Canada. As each week passed, British determination evoked increased admiration. As admiration increased, support also increased.

The overwhelming majority of the people of the United States came to see in Britain an outwork of their own defence. They saw the need of giving all possible assistance to Britain. But they saw, too, the need for strengthening their second line of defence. If the coasts of America were to be immune from attack, naval and air bases were needed on the islands of the Atlantic. Joint action between the United States and Canada was recognized also as necessary to their common security. From the point of view of Canada and the whole British commonwealth, what followed constitutes the most significant development in international affairs in the three months since our parliament adjourned in August, In ultimate importance, it far surpasses the formation of the triple axis.

The first inkling of developments already under way was given to the public by the president of the United States, on August 16. On that day Mr. Roosevelt announced that:

The United States government is holding conversations with the government of the British empire with regard to acquisition of naval and air bases for the defence of the western hemisphere and especially the Panama canal. The United States government is carrying on conversations with the Canadian government on the defence of the western hemisphere.

I shall have something to say to the house in a moment about these conversations. I wish first to recall the events which followed immediately on President Roosevelt's announcement.

The following day, which was August 17, I met the president at Ogdensburg. Our conversations that day, in continuance of conversations previously held, culminated in the formulation of an agreement which was

made public the next afternoon, in a joint statement issued by Mr. Roosevelt and myself. I should like now to place the joint statement on record. It has come to be known as the Ogdensburg agreement. These are its terms:

The Prime Minister and the President have discussed the mutual problems of defence in relation to the safety of Canada and the United States.

It has been agreed that a permanent joint board on defence shall be set up at once by the two countries.

This permanent joint board on defence shall commence immediate studies relating to sea, land and air problems including personnel and material.

It will consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere.

The permanent joint board on defence will consist of four or five members from each country, most of them from the services. It will meet shortly.

The Ogdensburg agreement was reached, as I have said, on August 17, and the joint statement setting forth its terms was issued on the following day. On August 20, Mr. Churchill announced in the British House of Commons the decision of the British government "spontaneously and without being asked or offered any inducement" to offer the United States sites for naval and air bases in the British possessions in the western hemisphere. I should like particularly to draw the attention of the house to one sentence of Mr. Churchill's announcement of the decision of the British government. "In all this line of thought," he said, "we found ourselves in very close harmony with the government of Canada."

On August 22, the Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence was appointed. Colonel O. M. Biggar, K.C., became chairman of the Canadian section and Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia of New York, chairman of the United States section. The first meeting of the board was held at Ottawa, in the following week. The board has met since on several occasions, and has been engaged upon continuous study of the sea, land and air problems immediately related to the defence of the north half of this hemisphere.

The next significant announcement came on September 3, the anniversary of the British declaration of war. On that day President Roosevelt announced that an agreement had been reached between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States by which sites for bases in British Atlantic possessions were to be made available to the United States. In Newfoundland and Bermuda these sites were leased for no other consideration than Great

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

Britain's interest in the strength and security of North America. The other sites in the Bahamas, the British West Indies and British Guiana, forming an outer ring of defence to the Panama canal, were leased in exchange for fifty over-age United States destroyers.

The house is aware that six of the fifty destroyers have since been made available to the Royal Canadian Navy and are already in 'commission. During a recent visit to Halifax, I had an opportunity of visiting some of the destroyers about to be transferred and of seeing how completely they were equipped. I was also privileged to extend to the United States admiral who brought the destroyers to Canadian waters the thanks of the government and people of Canada. I had previously written to the president to express our appreciation. Hon. members may be interested in the contents of my letter and the president's reply, and perhaps I might be permitted to place these on Hansard without reading them. My letter was as follows:

Ottawa, 30th September, 1940. Dear Mr. President,

During the last few days I have been receiving reports from the officers in command of our naval service concerning the delivery and transfer of the United States destroyers to Canada and to the United Kingdom. One of the aspects of this transfer which has been repeatedly referred to in these reports is the splendid condition in which the vessels arrived in Canada and the cordial and cooperative attitude displayed by the officers_ and crews when the transfer was actually being effected. I have been told, for example, that the vessels were so completely equipped that not only were the mess appointments in perfect condition but the larders were stored as though the vessels were to be used for prolonged cruises with their United States personnel aboard.

I want you to know that the thoughtfulness and consideration which have been displayed in these, perhaps minor, but very characteristic actions, have been recognized and very deeply appreciated by the Canadian naval service and by the government of this country as well. I hope that you will inform the responsible officers that the -way in which they have acted in arranging and carrying out the transfer of these vessels has been brought directly to my attention, and that I have asked that they should be thanked collectively and individually on behalf of the Canadian navy, the Canadian government and the Canadian people.

With kindest personal regards, I am Yours very sincerely,

W. L. Mackenzie King.

The president's reply reads: -

October 17, 1940.

Dear Mr. King:

Your very cordial letter concerning the manner and condition in which our destroyers have been turned over to Canada and the United Kingdom has given me great pleasure.

I shall be happy indeed to have conveyed to the responsible officers the sentiments you have so graciously expressed.

On their behalf and that of the United States navy please accept my sincere thanks.

With kindest personal regards, I am Yours very sincerely,

Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Now for a word as to the conversations which preceded the Ogdensburg agreement. The agreement itself was not due to any sudden or precipitate action. It was the outcome of several conversations between the president and myself with respect to coastal defence on both the Atlantic and the Pacific, in which the mutual interests of Canada and the United States were discussed. It has seemed to me that I should reserve for parliament such statement as it might be advisable to make with reference to those conversations which, in their nature, necessarily were highly confidential. I might say I have received the president's permission to refer to them publicly.

In the matter of time and significance, the conversations between President Roosevelt and myself on matters pertaining to the common interest of our two countries in the defence of their coasts, divide themselves naturally into two groups: the conversations which took place prior to the commencement of the war, and those which have taken place since.

The first conversation was on the occasion of a visit I paid the president at the White House, as long ago as March, 1937. At that time the discussion had reference to the position on the Pacific as well as on the Atlantic coasts. It was then agreed that, at some time in the future, meetings might be arranged between the staff officers of both countries to discuss problems of common defence.

On September 30 of that year, the president paid a visit to Victoria, British Columbia, crossing on a United States destroyer from Seattle. This visit led to arrangements for talks between staff officers regarding Pacific coast problems, which took place in Washington in January, 1938.

I think I may say that on every occasion on which I have visited the president in the United States, or on which I have met the president on his visits to Canada, matters pertaining to the defence of this continent have beeen a subject of conversation between us.

The defences on the Atlantic were referred to particularly in our conversations in August, 1938, in the course of the president's visit to Kingston, and the opening of the Thousand Islands bridge at Ivy Lee. At that time, it will be recalled, the president made the open declaration that the people of the United

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

States would not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil were threatened by any other empire. To this declaration I replied at Wood-bridge, Ontario, two days later, that we too had our obligations as a good, friendly neighbour.

Our common problems of defence were discussed at length and in a more concrete and definite way when I visited Washington in November, 1938, to sign the new Canadian-United States trade agreement.

In the summer of 1939, the president paid a visit to Canadian waters off the Atlantic coast. He subsequently told me that this visit, like his similar visit to Victoria two years earlier, had been occasioned by his concern with the problem of coastal defence.

With the outbreak of war, the question of coast defences became of vital importance. At the same time, the fact that Canada was a belligerent and the United States a neutral complicated the problem of pursuing the discussions. In the face of the European menace it was obviously desirable to give expression to the needs of joint defence. To the means, however, of effecting this end, the most careful consideration had to be given in order that there might be no grounds for the belief that there was any attempt on Canada's part to influence the policies or to interfere in the domestic affairs of a neutral country. Had there not been, between the president and myself, complete confidence in each other's purpose and motives, I question if the situation could have been met without occasioning genuine embarrassment to one side or the other, if not indeed to both. Fortunately, in the light of our previous conversations, there was no danger of the position being misunderstood, and my visit with the president at Warm Springs, in April of the present year, afforded an exceptional opportunity for a careful review of the whole situation.

This is perhaps an appropriate place for me to say that, from the beginning, and at the time of each conversation, the president made it perfectly clear that his primary interest in the subject was the defence of the United States. I was equally frank in making it clear that my concern was the effective defence of Canada, and the defence of the British commonwealth of nations as a whole.

If one thing above another became increasingly evident in the course of our conversations, it was that our respective countries had a common interest in the matter of the defence of this continent. Since this was the case, everything pointed to the wisdom of planning carefully in advance for whatev*r contingency might arise.

The conversations begun between the president and myself before the war, in the direct manner I have described, and at Warm Springs taken up anew after Canada had entered the war, were supplemented as the weeks went by, by conversations conducted through diplomatic channels. Staff conversations followed in due course.

I should perhaps say that I gave to my colleagues who were members of the war committee of the cabinet my entire confid%nce with respect to the conversations I had had with the president, and subsequent steps were taken with their knowledge and full approval. I should also like to say that the British government was kept duly informed of what was taking place. The Canadian government likewise was kept informed of the defence matters directly discussed between the British government and the United States. The discussions naturally included questions pertaining to the leasing of air and naval bases on the Atlantic.

As I have already mentioned, the president had announced the day before our meeting at Ogdensburg that conversations had been taking place between the two governments. The Ogdensburg agreement formally confirmed what the previous conversations and planning had initiated. It made known to the world that plans of joint defence were being studied and worked out between the two countries. It did one thing more: It made clear that the board which was being established to make studies and recommendations was not being formed for a single occasion to meet a particular situation, but was intended to deal with a continuing problem. The board on joint defence was, therefore, declared to be permanent.

By a minute of council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on August 21, the establishment of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence was formally ratified and confirmed.

With the permission of the house, I should like to insert in Hansard a copy of the complete minute:

The committe of the privy council have had before them a report, dated August 20, 1940, from the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, representing:

That on August 17, 1940, at the invitation of the President of the United States, he proceeded to the United States to Ogdensburg in the state of New York, to meet Mr. Roosevelt for the purpose of discussing mutual problems of defence in relation to the safety of Canada and the United States;

That conversations on this subject between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, accompanied by the Secretary of State for War of the United States (Mr. NOVEMBER 12, 1940

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

Stimson), took place on August 17, and the following joint statement with respect to agreement which had been reached was, on August 18, released for publication by the Prime Minister and the President:

"The Prime Minister and the President have discussed the mutual problems of defence in relation to the safety of Canada and the United States.

It has been agreed that a Permanent Joint Board on Defence shall be set up at once by the two countries.

This Permanent Joint Board on Defence shall commence immediate studies relating to sea,- land and air problems including personnel and material.

It will consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere.

The Permanent Joint Board on Defence will consist of four or five members from each country, most of them from the services. It will meet shortly."

That the actions of the Prime Minister in conducting the said conversations and in agreeing, on the part of Canada, to the establishment of a Permanent Joint Board on Defence for the consideration of the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere, are in accord with the policy of the government as approved on many occasions by the war committee of the cabinet and the cabinet itself.

The Prime Minister, therefore, recommends that his actions in conducting the said conversations and in agreeing to the establishment of the said Permanent Joint Board on Defence be ratified and confirmed.

The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.

I draw particular attention to the following paragraph:

That the actions of the Prime Minister in conducting the said conversations and in agreeing, on the part of Canada, to the establishment of a Permanent Joint Board on Defence for the consideration of the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere, are in accord with the policy of the government as approved on many occasions by the war committee of the cabinet and cabinet itself.

The Permanent Joint Board on Defence might well be considered a logical development from the declarations made by President Roosevelt and myself in August. 193S. Let me recall these declarations to the minds of hon. members. The vital passage in Mr. Roosevelt's declaration at Kingston on August IS reads:

The Dominion of Canada is part of the sisterhood of the British empire. I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire.

My acknowledgment of Mr. Roosevelt's Kingston declaration at Woodbridge, Ontario, on August 20, 1938, contained these words:

We, too, have our obligations as a good friendly neighbour, and one of them is to see that, at our own instance, our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected to make it, and that, should the occasion ever arise, enemy

forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea, or air to the United States, across Canadian territory.

These declarations marked the first public recognition by both countries of their reciprocity in defence.

I should be the last to claim that the Ogdensburg agreement was due wholly to the conversations between the president and myself, or to our reciprocal declarations in 1938. I am happy to know that, in a moment of crisis, personal friendship and mutual confidence, shared over many years between Mr. Roosevelt and myself, made it so easy for us to conclude the agreement reached at Ogdensburg. In reality the agreement marks the full blossoming of a long association in harmony between the people of Canada and the people of the United States, to which, I hope and believe, the president and I have also in some measure contributed. The link forged by the Canada-United States defence agreement is no temporary axis. It was not formed by nations whose common tie is a mutual desire for the destruction of their neighbours. It is part of the enduring foundation of a new world order, based on friendship and good will. In the furtherance of this new world order, Canada, in liaison between the British commonwealth and the United States, is fulfilling a manifest destiny.

It cannot be assumed that our common background would, of itself, have produced harmonious relations between the two countries, much as that background has helped to make possible a close understanding between us. The understanding which exists owes its vitality to positive and far-sighted statesmanship over more than a century.

May I recall in this connection the words I used at the opening of the Thousand Islands bridge on August 18, 1938:

Our populations, after all-

I said, in referring to Canada and the United States.

*-do not differ greatly from those of Europe. Indeed, the European countries have contributed most to their composition. Each of our countries has its problems of race and creed and class; each has its full measure of political controversy. Nevertheless we seem to have found the better way to secure and maintain our peace. ... In the realm of international relations, we, too, have learned to bridge our differences. We have practised the art of building bridges. ... In the art of international bridge-building there are two structures, each with its association with the St. Lawrence and the great lakes, of which I should like to say just a word. They stand out as monuments of international cooperation and good will. Each has its message for the world of to-day. The one is the Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817: the other, the International Joint Commission created in 1909.

ss

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

The Rush-Bagot agreement is a self-denying ordinance of mutual disarmament. The International Joint Commission is an instrument for the peaceful adjustment of differences. The permanent joint board is a mutual arrangement for common defence. All three may appear an inevitable progress dictated by ordinary common sense. But we need only to pause for a moment's reflection to realize that, in the madness of the world to-day, common sense is the highest statesmanship.

I doubt if any act by a Canadian government, and certainly no development in our international relations, has ever received such unanimous acclaim in this country. So far as I have been able to ascertain, not a single newspaper from coast to coast uttered a syllable of disapproval of the Ogdensburg agreement itself. Though estimates of its importance and of the contribution made by myself may have varied, almost no voice was raised to decry its significance.

To illustrate the reception given in Canada to the Ogdensburg agreement. I might cite three brief appreciations, all of which appeared in papers which are frequently critical of the government. The Ottawa Journal of August 19 stated:

Because they are joint trustees of this North American continent little can be wrong about Canada and the United States setting up a permanent joint board of defence. It is a measure of sane caution.

The same day, the Toronto Globe and Mail said:

English-speaking peoples, and all who love liberty, will applaud the arrangement, which welds the bonds of friendship that have grown steadily stronger in the last century and a quarter.

The Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph echoed the same sentiments in these words:

This decision, making the tw7o countries a defence entity and revealing graphically how the greatly changing conditions in Europe are affecting North America's war problems and policies, will undoubtedly be warmly approved in both the United States and Canada, will be of considerable comfort to the British empire as a whole and to the entire Christian civilized world in general.

Although the presidential campaign was already in progress in the United States, and some effort to make political capital might perhaps have been expected, an examination of American press comment reveals a similar unanimous approval of the Ogdensburg agreement. The general sentiment in the United States seems to have been aptly expressed by the Chicago Tribune on August 21 in these words:

Each nation is obliged to defend the other because that is its own best defence. Common sense dictates that arrangements for such defence should be made in advance, to assure efficiency and economy of force if the necessity for cooperation arises. The making of these arrangements is to be the function of the permanent joint board on defence which President Roosevelt and Prime Minister King have agreed to establish.

The realization, both in Canada and in the United States, that each nation is obliged to assist in the defence of its neighbour because that is its own best defence, has grown in the two years which elapsed between the Kingston and Woodb ridge

declarations and the Ogdensburg agreement.

The events of those two momentous years have served, as well, to allay the fears of those in Canada who felt that closer relations with the United States would weaken Canada's ties with Britain. Throughout my public life, I have consistently maintained the view that the friendliest relations between Canada and the United States, far from weakening the bonds betweens the nations of the British commonwealth, would, at all times, prove a source of strength Moreover, I have always held that in the promotion of Anglo-American friendship, Canada has a very special role to play. This belief, I am happy to say. is shared, in all three countries, by those who have worked for closer relations between the English-speaking communities. It is shared in fullest measure by the present Prime Minister of Great Britain. More than ten years ago, at a time when he himself was holding no public office, Mr. Churchill expressed this belief in terms which I should like to quote from an article of his which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post of February 15. 1930.

The words gain a prophetic significance in the light of all subsequent developments and of none more than those of the present day. 1 quote:

Great Britain herself has for centuries been the proved and accepted champion of European freedom. She is the centre and head of the British commonwealth of nations. She is an equal partner in the English-speaking world.

It is at this point that the significance of Canada appears. Canada, which is linked to the British empire, first by the growing importance of her own nationhood, and secondly, by many ancient and sentimental ties precious to young and strong communities, is at the same time intimately associated with the United States.

The long, unguarded frontier, the habits and intercourse of daily life, the fruitful and profitable connections of business, the sympathies and even the antipathies of honest neighbourliness, make Canada a binder-together of the English-speaking peoples. She is a magnet exercising a double attraction, drawing both Great Britain and the United States towards

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

herself and thus drawing them closer to each other. She is the only surviving bond which stretches from Europe across the Atlantic ocean. In fact, no state, no country, no band of men can more truly be described as the linchpin of peace and world progress.

It is a happy coincidence that the soundness of this view of Canada's position as a link between the British and American peoples should have been so amply demonstrated at a moment when the one who shared it so completely, and who expressed it in such eloquent terms, has come to hold the office of Prime Minister of Great Britain.

In an editorial comment which appeared in the London Times on August 22 of this year, the significance of the Ogdensburg agreement in the wider relations between the English speaking peoples was recognized tn terms reminiscent of Mr. Churchill's utterance of ten years ago

"The two countries" said the Times, "will henceforward have closer ties than they have ever had in the past, and Canada more than ever before will be the linchpin of Anglo-American relations."

Let me quote two other extracts, one from a Labour, and one from a Liberal newspaper They serve to reveal the unanimity of view of the British press. The London Daily Herald said:

Faith in the British system has been revitalized. So to-day it is with blessing we say: Canada, through you new links can be forged between us and our cousins across your unarmed frontier. Make your own decisions. They are ours.

On August 20 the Manchester Guardian said:

There is a close connection between the two announcements of the i 'eek-end of the negotiations with Britain for the leasing by the United States of naval and air bases in the Caribbean sea and of the agreement between the United States and Canada for setting up a joint defence board. They are part of the preparations for the defence of the western hemisphere against the dictatorships. They have a bearing on the war and on American help for Britain.

In view of the extent to which, throughout my public life. m.y known attitude towards the United States has been so greatly misrepresented. I may perhaps be pardoned if I venture to give to the house some indication of how this attitude and my occasional visits to that country have been viewed by those in the United Kingdom who are perhaps in the best position to judge of their value.

In a cable which he sent to me as recently as September 13. and which was first made public in the United Kingdom, Mr. Churchill was kind enough to use the following words:

I am very glad to have this opportunity of thanking you personally for all you have done for the common cause and especially in promoting a harmony of sentiment throughout the new world. This deep understanding will be a dominant factor in the rescue of Europe from a relapse into the dark ages.

A few days later-September 17-in the House of Lords, Lord Caldecote, who was at that time Secretary of State for the Dominions, made the following reference:

Perhaps the most striking development in the recent weeks has been the coming together of the British empire and the United States, as illustrated in the recent agreement for the grant of defence bases to the United States in certain British territories and the supply of American destroyers for our naval forces. But this is not all. It has been coupled with and indeed preceded by the agreement between the United States and Canada for the setting up of a joint defence board and perhaps I may be allowed to repeat the tribute which the Prime Minister paid in a recent message to the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, for the great part which he has consistently played in promoting a harmony of sentiment between the British empire and the United States of America. I need not remind your lordships how pregnant with possibilities this new development may well be for peace and freedom in the years to come.

Any part which our country may have had in bringing about a harmony of sentiment between the British empire and the United States may well be a legitimate source of pride to all Canadians. In the midst of the darkness which to-day enshrouds mankind, the relations between the United States and the British commonwealth shine forth as the one great beam of hopeful light left in the world.

During the American civil war, when the relations between Britain and the United States were strained almost to the breaking point. John Bright, speaking in the British House of Commons on June 16, 1863, used these conciliatory and prophetic words:

I can only hope that, as time passes, and our people become better informed, they will be more just, and that ill feelings of every kind will pass away; that in future all who love freedom here will hold converse with all who love freedom there, and that the two nations, separated as they are by the ocean, come as they are, notwithstanding, of one stock, may be in future time united in soul, and may work together for the advancement of the liberties and the happiness of mankind.

What greater hope can we entertain for humanity than that the vision of John Bright for the union of souls of the British and American peoples may find its realization in their work together for the preservation of the liberties of mankind.

I was going to say something with reference to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence development, but the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) had also the same intention, and as he has decided to defer to another

60 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

time his remarks on that subject I am glad now to do the same. I shall continue with a few references to our relations with France.

The present war has, as I have shown, enlarged the opportunities and the solemn responsibility of Canada to serve as a vital link between the United States and the British commonwealth. This role is, however, not the only one which Canada is uniquely equipped to play in international relations. There is a third great nation with whom our ties are close. I have spoken of Canada's place as an interpreter of the English speaking peoples. Canada, however, is not merely an English-speaking nation but is also a Frenchspeaking nation. It is, indeed, the second French-speaking nation of the world.

The agony of France has thrown upon Canada a great responsibility and a great mission. As I pointed out at the moment of the collapse of France, "the tragic fate of France leaves to French Canada the duty of upholding the traditions of French culture and civilization, and the French passion for liberty in the world. This new responsibility will, I believe, be accepted proudly."

Events are throwing upon Canada not only the mission of upholding the traditions of French culture and civilization, but also the duty of helping to keep alive in the hearts of Frenchmen, all but prostrate to-day before a brutal conqueror, their devotion to liberty and their hopes of its ultimate triumph.

In the consciousness of that mission, my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), recently broadcast a message to the French people. May I repeat a few lines from that message:

" Over there, you are our allies because wre know too well the heart of France to doubt an instant of her heart's loyalty. Because we love the same things, we know that, no matter what fate may bring to her, no matter what tribulations await her, France will never fight against the British, against us, French-Cana-dians, so many of whose sons have been resting in the soil of France for the past twenty-three years."

I appeal to hon. members in the house and I appeal to my fellow-countrymen in all parts of the dominion to bear always in mind the task which Canada alone can perform in keeping hope alive in the hearts of the grief-stricken people of France. Let no word from Canadian lips add to the agony of her open wounds. Let us inflict no new -pain, and let us be ever watchful to exercise the healer's art. In the new world which will follow the destruction of the evil thing which now crushes France, Canada's part in cementing the bonds between the French and the Englishspeaking peoples may be just as great as her

role in bringing into closer relationship the peoples of the British commonwealth and the United States.

A word in conclusion concerning our war aims, or, if the term seems preferable, our peace aims. Rightly considered, the two constitute opposite sides of the same shield. There has already been a good deal of discussion concerning aims in this war. It is said on the one hand that the only aim of importance is to defeat the enemy; on the other, that most important of all is to bring into being a new social order, an order in which freedom, truth and justice will increasingly prevail in the relations between individuals, between classes and among nations. Personally I do not see that any conflict need- arise between our war aims and our peace aims. If nazi Germany is not defeated there will be little of freedom, truth and justice left in this world. If on the other hand we are in earnest in our desire to have freedom, truth and justice prevail in all human relations we should be prepared to fight as men have never fought before.

The hidden source and latent power of all human action lies in its motive. The motive of nazi Germany is domination, its method the most brutal and barbarous which evil minds have been able to conceive. The motive of domination to achieve its ends must be accompanied by material power. That power may be exercised through the instruments of violence and force, or through any of the agencies of propaganda, trickery and treachery which serve to foster aggrandizement and beget fear. Material power alone, however, is not an enduring power. Strip domination of its material trappings and there is nothing left. Freedom, truth and justice belong to a different realm. They are not material things capable of being consumed and destroyed; they are of the mind and of the spirit, they belong to the eternal realities. They are attributes of God Himself. In the end they are certain to triumph.

In their conflict with those who make of material power an end in itself, those who treasure the world of mind and spirit may, for the preservation of their physical existence, find it necessary to forge and to use against their adversaries the weapons of material power. It is well to remember that " he that liveth by the sword shall perish by the sword" is a part of Christian doctrine. To my mind the simple test of the right or wrong of any aim or of any institution is: Can it endure? Domination by a single dictator or group of dictators may last for a time. It may extend its sway and its sweep, but it cannot endure. Freedom, truth and justice crushed to earth

The Address-Mr. Caldwell

will rise again. It is the breath of God which alone gives life to the bodies of men. Freedom, truth and justice, these will endure; for not only do they give life but they continue to give it more abundantly.

What is necessary then to win the present conflict? It is to put on the whole armour of God, not the outward material trappings only, the helmet, the sword and the shield, necessary as they may be for purposes of defence and of attack. Let it never be forgotten. that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Let us make sure that the helmet is also one of salvation; the sword, one of the spirit; and the shield, one of faith; that our loins are girt about with truth and that our breastplate is one of righteousness, and that our feet are shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. If these things are ours, and I believe they are the weapons with which Britain and the dominions seek to slay the dragon of nazi Germany to-day, we shall find little difficulty in reconciling our war aims and our peace aims. To slay the dragon which has been fascinating its victims by fear, poisoning the springs of theii- moral and intellectual being at the source, and which would prey upon their vitals for years to come is clearly the first task of a civilization which would save itself. In equal measure, however, we must strive throughout the struggle itself, and more than ever when the evil dragon of nazism is slain, to see that never again, in our own or in any other land, shall the gods of material power, of worldly possessions and of special privilege be permitted to exercise their sway. Never again must we allow any man or any group of men to subjugate by fear and to crush by the power of might the spirit and the lives of honest and humble men.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

I do not propose to follow closely to-night the arguments or the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I shall have some criticisms to make, but before I do so I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister upon an anniversary in his life which I understand is reached to-day. I am told that thirty-one years ago, on November 12, 1909, he first took his seat in this house as Minister of Labour. I should like on behalf of the group to which I belong-and I am sure I express the feelings of other hon. members as well-to wish him good health and strength to carry on the difficult task that is now his.

I should like also to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address, and to express to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) the appreciation we feel for his kindly reference to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). We feel that in that reference he placed before the people of Canada as well as hon. members of this house one of the reasons why many people who might otherwise oppose the use of force believe that the struggle now in progress is one for the very fundamentals of democracy; for in this parliament on more than one occasion the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose in his place and freely expressed opinions which were in direct opposition to the views held by a vast majority of the members of this house. The very fact that that could be done in this chamber is in my opinion a demonstration of some democracy in the Dominion of Canada.

I would also congratulate the seconder of the address (Mr. Jutras), and to pass this remark, that his excellent use of the English language and the fact that I am told that he speaks French equally well, coming as he does from an English-speaking province of this dominion, constitute an example which I wish more of our young people throughout this broad dominion would follow. I want to congratulate him upon his ability to use both languages so proficiently.

The members of our group welcome this new session of parliament. [DOT] We believed, and we believe, that this house should neither adjourn nor prorogue for a longer period than ninety days during the continuance of the present struggle. It is, I think, a sad commentary on the Prime Minister's professions of democracy that he has treated parliament with what I believe to be scant consideration since the outbreak of war. In the first eight crucial months of this great struggle parliament sat for only six business days, including January 25. When it was suggested that parliament should adjourn and not prorogue on August 7 we were careful to inquire if reassembly on November 5 would be mandatory. The Prime Minister gave us his assurance that it would be. The question was prompted by a desire to prevent a repetition of the farce of January 25. It was with surprise, therefore, that we read in the press the announcement that the meeting on November 5 would be merely formal and that the house would adjourn without discussion until some time in January. The announcement went so far as to say that members who lived at a distance need not attend.

Without entering into the controversy between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie

The Address-Mr. Coldwell

King) ami the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) as to who suggested this strange method of procedure I would remind them both that this is still a free parliament and not a fascist grand council or nazi reichstag, to be assembled and dismissed at the will of any member of the house, no matter how high the office he may hold. The members of this house decided to adjourn until November 5, and neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the opposition had any right to suggest that some members need not attend or that there would be no discussion. Fortunately the press and public opinion prevented the attempted usurpation of the rights and privileges of the people's representatives. We at least are determined that in a war fought for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and democratic institutions, parliament, not the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition or any other person, shall be supreme. Parliament may be a nuisance to some people; it always has been, and many attempts have been made to get rid of it. Methods were cruder three hundred years ago when, on another November 5, Guy Fawkes nroposed to blow it up with gunpowder. This November 5 the Canadian parliament was not to be blown up; it was to be blown out. Well, both plans fortunately were frustrated, and parliaments continue to be symbols and instruments of an age old and still to be completed struggle for freedom and selfgovernment. Surely it is the duty of members of this house to meet frequently during this period of grave crisis.

Since we rose in August events have occurred which have profoundly affected the future of the world. The Prime Minister reviewed them to-hight. The war has' continued to spread, and we have watched with admiration the truly magnificent effort of the British people in defence of their homeland. Meantime France has fallen more completely under the domination of the dictators. Pierre Laval, the long time friend of fascism, now is vicepremier of * that stricken country, guiding Marshal Petain, who is old and tired, just as Hindenburg was old and tired when Hitler began 'his rise to power. What then is to be our relationship to the Vichy government? No longer can it be regarded as a free government representing the will of the French people. Its decrees obviously are dictated by its nazi masters.

This tragic situation at once raises the question of the position of its legation in Ottawa. Is it wise and proper, in the light of everything that has happened in France and in Europe, that representatives of any profascist governments under the control of

fMr. Coldwell.]

Hitler and Mussolini should continue to enjoy all the privileges and immunities of the diplomatic corps? It seems to us that while representatives of foreign states and powers should be treated always with the utmost consideration, yet now we should remember that we are engaged in a new kind of war, no longer a struggle between nations in the old sense of the phrase but, as the Prime Minister said earlier this evening, ideological. Ideological wars cut across boundaries, just as the religious wars cut across boundaries and across nations centuries ago. This leads me to say that our government might make it known to neutral powers that it is the wish of this country that accredited diplomatic representatives from abroad shall be persons who in the recent past have shown no satisfaction with the successes of Mussolini or Hitler in Ethiopia, Spain, Czechoslovakia or any other place where the menace of dictatorship has raised its ugly head. This precaution we owe not only to the people of Canada but to our good neighbours to the south to whom since we adjourned in early August the government has linked us closer.

We agree with the mover of the address in expressing our deepest satisfaction with the agreement that has been reached with the United States for the joint defence of this continent. Indeed last session we urged that attempts should be made by Canada to discuss such a proposal. At that time our suggestion met with a very cool reception by this house, but I am glad that President Roosevelt invited the Prime Minister to meet him at Ogdensburg. The press and public generally approved whole-heartedly the meeting and all its happy results. Indeed, it is our hope that the friendly relationship existing among the peoples of Canada, the British commonwealth and the United States may be even more firmly cemented as the days go by. Meantime the Prime Minister has been wise to inform the house regarding the agreement, and I would suggest that further information can be obtained later in the session regarding the extent and scope of the agreement perhaps in greater detail. Should this or other matters require a closed session of this house, then I think the government should facilitate its being held.

From the United States agreement it seems to me two facts emerge. First, it is another recognition by our populous, rich, and powerful neighbour to the south that she has no security apart and distinct from the collective security of her neighbours as well as herself. And, second, Canada recognizes her position as a part of the north American continent, and undertakes new obligations in regard to it.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell

Thus, I repeat, understandings which may profoundly affect the world position of our own country ought to receive the fullest consideration by this parliament. We are of the opinion, too, that every phase of our war effort should receive the most careful scrutiny by this house. Recently Major-General Crerar, from whose speech before the Ottawa Canadian Club some quotations were made by the leader of the opposition this afternoon, has been giving addresses across Canada. In them he has been emphasizing our need to intensify our efforts toward the complete provision of armaments for our men in uniform. We of this group believed a year ago that Canada's most effective contribution in this war ought to be made in the national organization of industry for the supplying of economic aid without profit to ourselves. We still believe this to be the major contribution that we can make. So far public attention has been focussed upon the raising of men. Our mobilization act so far has been used only to register the adult population, and to call out certain classes of young men. In our opinion the act should have been used first to mobilize industry for an efficient war effort.

Apart from every other consideration I submit we have no right to ask men to surrender themselves for the common cause unless and until we ask industry and our financial institutions to place themselves on the same basis at the disposal of the country in her hour of need. And this has not yet ' been done. On the contrary large sums of money are being spent by the governments on the enlargement of privately owned plants and upon the erection of new plants which are to be owned by the governments but operated by certain private corporations.

I would remind the house that reliance on private enterprise nearly lost the war of 1914-18, and private enterprise, according to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), blocked the making of certain war supplies in Canada during the first eight months of the present war. It was not until a new government in Britain revolutionized the control of her war effort that the picture began to change. Yet in Canada, under the policies favoured by the Department of Munitions and Supply, this country is being delivered more completely into the hands of those who already monopolize our economic life.

Indeed, I will go a step farther and say that it would appear that government-owned institutions are being sacrificed in the interests of private corporations. Allow me to illustrate:

Last week I was in a large western city near which a new war industry is being

established. The Canadian National railway and the Canadian Pacific railway run almost parallel into this city. The site for the plant was selected just half a mile from the large mains supplying the city with water and on the main electric power line. The site was level, without buildings and in every way suitable. The Canadian National Railways could run their spurs quite easily into the plant, but the Canadian Pacific Railway could not. A short time ago the site was changed to the other side of the Canadian National Railways' track, in order that the Canadian Pacific Railway might serve it. The change necessitates, among other things, the building of a water main four and one-half miles long, instead of the half mile required before at a cost of approximately $60,000 a mile.

Mr. TURGEON:

What city was that?

Mr. COLDWELL:

I believe I may say that it was the city of Winnipeg. This is not hearsay. I was taken out to see the sites by the responsible city head, so that I might be quite fully and reliably informed.

Mr. HOWE:

The hon. member's information is not complete, however.

Mr. COLDWELL:

That is the information as it was given to me by the mayor of the city.

No doubt other members of this house can give, and I hope will give, examples of how powerful oil companies, gas and power companies, chemical concerns, milling interests and aeroplane corporations are being encouraged to dig in now, so that when the war ends Canada will be thoroughly controlled by monopolistic finance and industry. I say that it is the duty of this parliament to change the trends and to relieve those who are responsible for the situation from any further control of our war effort. Otherwise the Canadian people will have lost the war on the home front.

Some industries, too, are pursuing labour policies which must ultimately bring them into conflict with their employees. Up to the present time, unemployment has enabled employers to prevent attempts at organization. Men who wished to organize in the unions of their choice have been dismissed. But the intensification of our war effort and the growing realization that this is a war not of men but of machines, will create a labour shortage. Then these employers will face a new situation and will demand legislation to control labour. Indeed, one order in council, P.C. 6286, tabled last Thursday can be used to prevent workers from trying to better their working conditions. Apparently this order in council has some teeth in it in

The Address-Mr. Coldwell

the form of a heavy fine. But another order in council, P.C. 2685, setting out the proper relations between employer and employee is a dead letter because it has no teeth in it, and the government has given the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) no power to enforce it.

In Britain the success of the war effort in the last six months is due to the fact that labour is organized and its power made manifest in the highest councils of the nation. In Canada employers thwart with impunity attempts to organize. Even plants financed by the government deliberately discriminate against men who wish to organize. Indeed, a government corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which for some inexplicable reason the Minister of Munitions and Supply took with him when he left the rest of his former department behind, forbade organization among its employees.

True, the Prime Minister repudiated Major Murray's attempt to speak in the name of the government on that occasion, but apparently nothing further was done about the matter by the minister. What is his attitude toward the unionization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation employees, or that of workers in government-financed plants? And what of the broadcasting corporation? Radio is an important feature of modern life. Through it great good or evil can be done. In a free democratic country it ought to be available to all. But in Canada, people on this side of the house are never invited to participate in the discussion of public issues. That is reserved for members of the government and for officials who praise them. Indeed, radio stations in some parts refuse to allow representatives of organized labour to use their facilities, even though their manuscripts may have been passed by the dominion censor. Yet employing interests are able to use the same facilities to pat themselves on their backs or to smother the country with soap. Nevertheless it was through the efforts of public-spirited citizens that radio in Canada was made a public service subject to the control of parliament.

Now that radio is an important weapon of war it is deplorable that this great service has been allowed by the responsible minister to deteriorate to the extent that a gentleman, whom the Winnipeg Free Press describes as being "one of the oldest and staunchest supporters of publicly owned radio in Canada" has resigned.

Mr. Alan Plaunt's charges are very serious. In his letter of resignation he states that he has long ceased to have confidence in the

internal organization and executive direction

of the corporation. He adds, and again I quote:

It is my considered view that the present conditions^ seriously hamper the corporation in fulfilling its functions in the war emergency, and prejudice its survival as an effective instrument of national unity afterwards.

These, I repeat, are serious charges and demand careful investigation by this parliament. This is not the time to enter into details, but a few things occur to one who has listened to the radio during the past year. In time of war the news and propaganda which come over the air are of the utmost importance. This is particularly true in the case of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because its broadcasts are heard by our neighbours to the south. In war time it is essential that our educational programmes should be attractive, pleasant to the ear as well as appealing to the intelligence of the radio audience. Its day-time sustaining programmes, consisting largely of soap advertising, are turned off in thousands of homes across Canada. People are tired of hearing about suds, dirty clothes and the airing of imaginary family squabbles and difficulties.

But I have been wondering if the situation in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may not be due to inadequate ministerial supervision. I have tried to imagine why the Minister of Munitions and Supply retained radio under his control when he abandoned the transport portfolio. It is impossible to see any connection between radio and the production of munitions and supplies; surely its proper place is with those in charge of information and propaganda. Why did the minister of one of the heaviest and most important war departments retain an additional department which has no relation to his work? This should be explained.

Finally-and this must be said by someone-there are the most disquieting stories in circulation regarding the competence and so on, of the general manager. A reputable journal like Toronto Saturday Night no doubt refers to this in its last issue when it says:

And after poking around it seems that there is a mess in the management and policy of the C.B.C., that a public airing will probably do good.

If this is true, then the sooner parliament looks into the matter the better. This country cannot afford the luxury of incompetence or unreliability in the management of one of our most important war and postwar instruments. In short, I believe, that this parliament has the right to know what serious weaknesses the investigation by Mr. Thompson, to which Mr. Plaunt refers in his

The Address-Mr. Coldwell

letter of resignation, disclosed. A committee should be appointed to investigate the entire matter, and most certainly the Minister of Munitions and Supply should be relieved of a department to which he cannot possibly give the required attention.

Questions have been asked already by the leader of the opposition with regard to the progress of our munitions output. To what extent are we supplementing the factories of Great Britain in the production of tanks and other heavy equipment? Have plans for the making of these commodities been approved and have we the workers and materials in sight to carry through the plans when they are approved? Then, too, what efforts are being made to conserve certain essential material for our own and Britain's needs? I notice that in a statement which he issued on October 23, 1940, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) said that our exports to Portugal, Spain and Switzerland have shown sharp increases. For example, the minister said that Spain has been getting automobiles, scrap copper and asbestos.

Spain is a member of the fascist circle, and several times it has been thought that she might participate actively in the war although Berlin states that, like Italy before June, she is more useful neutral than at war with Britain. Why are we sending Spain scrap copper when that country is one of the world's sources of copper? Why asbestos? Why automobiles? All these in larger quantities. We have sent, and I thought that we were still sending-the Prime Minister corrected this belief to-night-material to arm Japan. Are we now helping fascist Spain to prepare for war against us, or to arm Germany and Italy. The Prime Minister stated to-night that Germany is short of copper. We cannot sell wheat to Russia, and I am not complaining about that if there is a danger of its going to Germany, but why sell copper, asbestos and automobiles to fascist Spain which is the creature of Mussolini and Hitler? We demand that the export of goods to our potential enemies cease at once. In saying this I am certain that I am expressing the desire of a vast majority of the Canadian people.

On motion of Mr. Coldwell the debate was adjourned.