1. Has the Vichy government of France an ambassador or envoy in Canada?

2. If so, where is he located, who are the members of his staff; is there any inspection of the same, or regulation of the embassy?

3. Is it intended to olose this legation?

4. Has the government received any request from His Majesty's government of Great Britain to keep it open? If so, from whom?

5. Does this Vichy office in Ottawa conduct any dominion or empire business with Vichy?

6. If so, what is the amount of such business and of what nature i* it?

Canadian Regiments at Hong Kong

1. The French government is represented in Canada by a minister, Mr. Ristelhueber.

2. His office is in the French Legation on Sussex street in Ottawa. The members of his staff are Mr. de Lageneste, First Secretary, Mr. Treuil, Commercial Attache and Mr. du Bois-berranger, Secretary. The French Legation is subject to the same regime and obligations as legations of other countries in Canada.

3. No.

4. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has expressed the view that it was desirable to continue the existing arrangements with regard to diplomatic representation as between France and Canada.

5. Yes.

6. It is not in the public interest to answer this question.

1. Does the government maintain an envoy or minister in Eire?

2. If so, who is he, who are the members of his staff and what are their respective salaries and other allowances?

3. What is the annual cost to Canada?

4. Do Australia and New Zealand maintain similar offices in Eire, and where are they located?

5. Has Canada trade commissioners in Dublin ?

6. If so, are these envoys not duplications of services rendered by trade agents?

1. There is a Canadian High Commissioner accredited to Ireland.

2. Mr. John Doherty Kearney, high commissioner, salary, $7,500, allowance, $8,000; Mr. E. J. Garland, secretary, salary, $3,540, allowance, $2,000; Miss E. O'Malley, stenographer grade 3, salary, $1,620, allowance, $250; Mr. B. Chambers, clerk messenger, salary, $465.

3. 1940-41-$30,281.49.

4. Australia and New Zealand do not maintain similar offices in Ireland.

5. There is a Canadian trade commissioner in Dublin.

6. There is no duplication of services.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to lay before the house a copy of order in council, P.C. 454, dated January 21, 1942, concerning the superannuation of Mr. T. M. Fraser, Assistant Clerk of the House.

I have assigned Mr. C. W. Boyce, Chief of English Journals, to act as Assistant Clerk of the House pending a permanent appointment to be made by the governor in council.

<4561-li

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have assigned J. Laundy to be acting Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms during the present session.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, if the routine

business of this afternoon has now been completed I desire the indulgence of the house while I make a brief statement, somewhat in the nature of a matter of privilege. After careful perusal and intensive study of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) regarding the Hong Kong expedition, I have now come to the conclusion that a very serious situation is revealed and one with which I feel bound to deal. When I made -my statement yesterday I was not dealing specifically with the question of man-power.

I do not believe that anyone who reviews the minister's statement will find in it a satisfactory answer to the questions which have been asked by the public about Hong Kong in particular, and the man-power situation in Canada generally. A thorough study of the minister's statement has revealed to me certain facts which, as a non-military man, I did not fully appreciate at the time that very technical and, may I add, subtle statement was made. Having since reviewed it carefully, I am impelled to make a further statement, and I crave the indulgence of this house while I do so.

In my opinion the country is entitled to further information and I propose to indicate the method by which I believe that information should be made available. The fact that from 138 to 148 men with less than minimum training were sent to Hong Kong definitely and inescapably establishes the serious lack of trained man-power in Canada. It must be assumed that if trained man-power was available, they would have been sent. One cannot easily believe that the Minister of National Defence, or the military officials, took untrained men if trained men were available.

This fact raises squarely the question of the state of reserves of trained man-power which we have in Canada. The matter is one of such vital importance that I do not believe it can be properly settled without an open and immediate investigation by a committee of this house. How can we as members of parliament, and how can the people of this country pass upon the question of compulsory service and kindred subjects until we and they have full,

Canadian Regiments at Hong Kong

exact and precise information regarding the present standing of trained man-power in Canada?

The second fact made evident by the minister's statement is that the failure to provide universal carriers, which are fighting vehicles, and other transport at the port of embarkation at the proper time rests with the Canadian authorities. The direct responsibility for this failure must be determined and those responsible must be disciplined. The third fact revealed by the minister's statement is that the commander of the expedition, Brigadier Lawson, was disappointed at the lack of mechanical transports which he should have had. His cable from the boat leads to no other conclusion.

Having regard to all these factors, the country is entitled to know why the expedition was not recalled until such time as the transport and equipment could be provided to go along with the expedition. These are questions upon which the country is entitled to receive specific and factual information, and the only manner in which such information can be provided satisfactorily is by a searching public investigation by a committee of this house. I think the minister himself should welcome a public investigation. A departmental investigation will not satisfy public opinion. Therefore I invite him to set up a special committee of this house to investigate the factual and exact situation regarding what happened in connection with sending these men to Hong Kong.

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

Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to say a word as there is some responsibility on the part of the government as a whole in a matter of this kind. As a matter of special privilege my hon. friend has asked for permission to make a statement. I took no exception to my hon. friend so doing, but I wish he had been careful to refrain from using words in his statement that I do not think were at all justified. He referred to the statement made yesterday by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), as a subtle statement. I am sure that any hon. members of the house who listened to the statement of the Minister of Defence regarded it as a very straightforward, honest and frank statement, and I would add that my hon. friend in his reply yesterday, unless I misunderstood him, more or less so^ designated it, but since that time he has evidently been receiving information from outside sources and to-day has presented us with the result of his further communications with

others. May I say to my hon. friend that the government will certainly grant, and grant immediately, a committee of investigation into this matter. We welcome the opportunity of so doing, and the committee will be granted just as soon as opportunity permits.

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

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the committee which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has asked for and which the Prime Minister so readily granted, but may I ask that the order of reference be wide enough to permit the committee to inquire how the force was asked for, who decided it should go, and under what conditions it went. I suggest that there is something involved in that which should be looked into by a committee of this house.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Ralston) in his statement yesterday made all these points clear, but I can assure my hon. friend that there will be no desire on the part of the government to limit the investigation in any essential particular.

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, and referring to page 4476 of Hansard of last session, the Hansard of yesterday, where I said that: "the Minister of National Defence should resign on account of the Hong Kong affair," the record is not complete because immediately after I had said that, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) shouted "Order" to prevent my saying anything further. That was, as always, a complete contradiction; he does not know what he wants.

On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 4.15 p.m.

Friday, January 23, 1942