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

Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct one or two questions to the Prime Minister, arising out of a bulletin received from London to-day in Ottawa, in which it is stated that Prime Minister Churchill announced to-day that the British government has acceded to Australia's request for represents-

Imperial War Cabinet

tion on an imperial war cabinet. It will be recalled that yesterday Prime Minister Curtin is reported to have stated over the radio:

We claim representation in an imperial war cabinet so that Australia's voice and counsel may be heard directly.

The bulletin to which I have already referred quotes Mr. Churchill as having saidi:

We have, of course, agreed that the same facilities will be accorded to New Zealand, Canada and South Africa.

I now ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Churchill has communicated with Canada offering facilities to Canada for representation in an imperial war cabinet; and if so, will Canada be represented in an imperial war cabinet. I further ask the Prime Minister to inform the house and the country what is the government's position in relation to this important question. Perhaps I -may be pardoned for recalling that I have repeatedly urged in this house the formation of an imperial war cabinet.

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

Is my Ihon. friend asking a question, or is he seeking-

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

No, I am making just a brief statement.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Might I ask my hon. friend if he is asking a question on the orders of the day? If so, perhaps he would allow me to reply to it.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I am not quite through. If the Prime Minister will be good enough to be patient I shall be through in a moment, and then he will have all the time he requires. Before the Prime Minister answers these questions I would ask him another question. Would he indicate the position which he took in consultations which occurred at Washington with reference to the formation of a supreme allied war council? Press reports at that time indicated that the Prime Minister was insisting upon separate representation for Canada rather than representation through a united British commonwealth delegation. I suggest to him and to the house that we are entitled to clear and specific information about the attitude which the Prime Minister took on that occasion, and I invite him to give it.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has asked me two questions-

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Three, I think.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Three, possibly; and they are fairly long ones, so that perhaps I may be excused if I do not answer them categorically. However, the first question

had reference to a statement which appears in the press, to the effect that Mr. Churchill had stated this morning that an imperial war cabinet was to be formed on which Australia would be represented. He asked me if I had had any communication from the Prime Minister of Great Britain in reference to the matter.

I have had a communication, which I happen to have before me. It was received this morning. The substance of it is that the government of the United Kingdom has been thinking over machinery for consultation between themselves and other members of the British commonwealth on matters of urgency connected with the war in the light of the new position resulting from United States entry into the war, and recent developments in the Pacific; that they had received communications from Australia making certain requests, and that these also were being considered. There is an indication of the form in which the request was made and a reference to the fact that, in the form indicated*, it would be acceded to; but I have not seen as yet precisely what the Prime Minister has said in the British House of Commons, nor do I know exactly what the position is that has been reached by the British government. I am not therefore in a position to discuss at the moment what action Canada may be expected to take or will be invited to take. However, I promise my hon. friend that as soon as it is possible to do so, I will give the house particulars as to the exact nature of the proposed representation to be accorded dominion governments in the cabinet of Britain, and will certainly be very happy to indicate Canada's position in reference thereto. That, I think, goes as far in answering my hon. friend's question at the moment as I can go. I have asked to be advised of the exact statement made by the Prime Minister so that I may have it before me in answering any question officially.

The other question related to the attitude I had taken at Washington in consultation with reference to a supreme allied war council and to a statement in the press to the effect that I had pressed for separate representation . of Canada at that time rather than adopting the position that Canada would be prepared to cooperate with Britain and the United States in whatever arrangements might be thought most advisable. May I say to my hon. friend at once that I made no representation at Washington with respect to separate representation of Canada in the matter of allied direction of war effort, and that my whole aim at Washington, as it has been in the past in Britain and in the United States,

Compulsory Military Service

arid will be in the future in both those countries, was one of endeavouring to take the position that would best serve to bring about cooperation among all the governments concerned, in the way which would help most to further the effectiveness of the common war effort.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Might I ask the Prime Minister a question? In view of what the Prime Minister has said about north and south America in Washington, can any action be taken by Canada now without consulting Britain and the other dominions? We have a duty to the other dominions and to the empire, and I think they should be consulted before any action is taken.

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

My hon. friend says something about wnat 1 said in Washington about south America. May I say that to my recollection I never uttered a single word with respect to south America while I was in Washington. The trouble with my hon. friend and many others who come from Toronto is that they often take too literally everything that appears in a certain section of the press.

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

I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister, based upon a report of an important and significant speech delivered last night by the premier of Quebec at Montreal, in which he is reported to have said:

We have Mr. King, who has always been against conscription.

And again

We have at the head of the Liberal party Mr. King, who is an anti-conscriptionist.

And again

Mr. King is against conscription.

Is the statement of Mr. Godbout correct? Is there any undertaking, understanding or commitment, express or implied, existing between himself and Mr. Godbout, or between himself and any other person, to the effect that no action will be taken to provide for compulsory military service overseas, even if the plebiscite is answered in the affirmative and he is released from his commitment?

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

May I say to my hon.

friend, in the first place, that I have nothing before me and he has nothing before him with

respect to what Mr. Godbout is alleged to have said last night. I am therefore not in a position to say whether or not any remarks attributed to the premier of Quebec have been correctly reported.

That, however, is not "as important as a direct answer to the question with respect to my position in regard to conscription both within Canada and for service overseas, in relation to the past, to the present and to the future.

I tried yesterday to make that position quite plain in my remarks, which now appear in Hansard. I then repeated what, in part,

I had previously said in this house on those matters. I now give to my hon. friend as reply to the question which he has asked what I said yesterday, which appears in Hansard at page 44, restating what I said in this house on November 12 last:

So far as conscription stands for compulsory selective national service, that is a principle which this government has embodied in its National Resources Mobilization Act passed at a previous session of this parliament. As^ to how rapidly that principle should be applied, and how far it should be extended, is a matter which the government must decide and will decide in the light of all the knowledge which it has with respect to the needs of our war effort and the position of the country in meeting them.

I want it to be distinctly understood that so far as the principle of compulsory selective national service is concerned for Canada, in Canada, I stand for that principle. I have never taken any other stand. It is the position that I have held all along. It has been applied in connection with military training, _ and applied in a number of other directions I might mention. How much further it will be applied the house will learn as the government takes its decisions on that matter.

And the further quotation also from what I said on November 12 last which appears on page 48 of yesterday's Hansard:

But so far as conscription for service overseas is concerned in the armed forces of Canada, that question was submitted to the people of Canada at the last general election, an election which was held in war time, and in which the leaders of all political parties made their statements to the electorate, and the people of Canada decided against conscription for overseas service. So far as I am concerned, without any consultation of the people on that subject, I do not intend to take the responsibility of supporting any policy of conscription for service overseas.

That is my position-as stated, I might say, repeatedly in this house, but certainly most clearly and emphatically on November 12 last and again yesterday in this house.

Replying further to my hon. friend's question as to what I intend to do as a result of the plebiscite, I thought I had also anticipated the answer to that question in my remarks yesterday afternoon, which will be found on page 32 of yesterday's Hansard, when I said:

Contributions to Britain

When my hon. friend goes on to ask me what 1 am going to do with respect to any expression of view which may be made by the people in connection with any reference which will be made to them, may I say to him that in seeking to get relief from past commitments I am not going to begin by making new and fresh commitments. In seeking freedom on the part of the ministry I am not going to start in by seeking to tie my own hands.

That is the answer to that part of the question.

My hon. friend asked a further question, whether there was any understanding between myself and Mr. Godbout, express or implied, as to the position which I would take as a result of any plebiscite that would be presented to the people. May I say to him that there is no understanding, express or implied, with Mr. Godbout or with any other person on earth with respect to the attitude that I propose to take after the people have expressed their views with regard to giving the government a free hand.

May I add that such attitude as I shall take at the time will be taken in the light of all the circumstances as I may know them as a member of the government, and of all conditions as I know them in regard to this country and, as far as I am able to know something about them, conditions in other countries as well.