Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement at an early date concerning the Pacific council which was set up at Washington subsequent to the adjournment of this house on March 27.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only

statement that I would be at liberty to make is one which I think I might make immediately. As my hon. friend knows, the Pacific war council was set up about three weeks ago. The meeting which was held on Wednesday of last week, and which I was invited by the President to attend, was the third meeting the council has held. The meeting of the war council was presided over by the President, and its proceedings were similar to the proceedings of a cabinet. I would not be at liberty myself to state what subjects were discussed or what conclusions were reached; any statement to be given out with respect to the proceedings of the council would be given out by the President. I understand that no announcement has been made of that particular day's proceedings or of the proceedings of the two previous meetings of the council.

The discussions, as would be obvious, related to war matters pertaining to the Pacific. No public intimation could be given of what was discussed because anything given to the public would be given equally to the enemy. At

the meeting which I attended there were present Sir Ronald Campbell, minister for the United Kingdom; Mr. Loudon, minister in the United States representing the Netherlands; Doctor Soong, representing China; Doctor Evatt, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia, who represented Australia, and the Hon. Mr. Nash, representing New Zealand.

I understand that meetings of the council will be held more or less regularly every week.

I believe it will be in the interests of the proceedings of the council that for the most part the same persons should represent the different countries at the respective meetings in order that they may be more familiar with the matters being discussed. I do not know that there is more that I can say at the moment, unless my hon. friend has some specific question to ask.

Mr. GREEN:

Who will be representing

Canada?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Our minister at Washington, Mr. Leighton McCarthy, will represent Canada at the meetings. Mr. McCarthy was not in Washington at the time of the first meeting. Mr. Hume Wrong, the counsellor of the legation, represented Canada on that occasion. At the second meeting Mr. McCarthy represented Canada. For reasons that will be obvious it has not been thought advisable that more than one person representing any country should be present at a meeting. If there were more than one representative of any country present, it might create embarrassment with respect to the representation of some of the other countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I follow up that question? As the other dominions and countries are represented on the council by men who have had experience in the government of their country, does not the Prime Minister think that Canada should be represented by someone other than a high commissioner, someone who has had experience in the government of this country, a man of ministerial status?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Canada has not a high commissioner at Washington, but is represented by the Canadian minister to Washington.

I would say, as regards the present minister to Washington, that, as my hon. friend is no doubt aware, Mr. McCarthy was for many years a foremost member of this House of Commons. While he has not been a member of the government of Canada he has had wide parliamentary experience. Canada is exceedingly fortunate in having one of Mr. McCarthy's exceptional attainments to represent our country at Washington and in having

P/ie Plebiscite

him represent Canada at the meetings of the Pacific war council. I would also say that I think Mr. Hume Wrong, while he has not been in parliament, has had exceptional experience in diplomatic work in different countries and is exceedingly well qualified to represent Canada on any board or council such as the Pacific council. I would not feel that previous cabinet experience would necessarily be an essential qualification. It no doubt would be helpful inasmuch as the proceedings of the Pacific war council are carried on very much as proceedings would be in any cabinet. The personal qualifications of the representative would count for a great deal, I think, in respect of the effectiveness of his service.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a further question? What relation has the Pacific conference which was established in London a month ago, representing certain countries, with Canada excepted, to the Pacific council at Washington, with Canada included? Will the London conference have to report to the Washington council, and will there have to be an exchange of notes before we can have any defence in the Pacific? What is the relation between the body in London and the one in Washington?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend will recall I had some difficulty, when I was asked at an earlier stage of the session a question with respect to a Pacific war council in Washington, to say whether Canada would be represented on that council. My difficulty arose from the fact that a Pacific war council was formed in London, England, in the first instance, and at that time it was not certain whether a Pacific war council would ultimately be also formed in Washington. The council which was first set up in 'London was a gathering of the representatives of certain Pacific countries which were immediately involved in the operations in the southeast Pacific, brought together at the instance of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. At the present time provision has been made for the meeting from time to time in London of this counterpart of the Pacific council which meets ini Washington. Canada will continue to be represented on that body by the high commissioner. For the present it has been thought advisable to have the council dealing with Pacific affairs meet regularly in Washington rather than in London. The whole matter of the study of conditions in the Pacific has had to take shape more or less in accordance with the manner in which events have helped to shape it.

Mr. CHURCH:

Will not the London conference have to report to Washington first?

And in the meantime Japan may take action in the Pacific, as we have lost control of the sea in the Pacific.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

As my hon. friend knows, there is a combined strategy with which certain of the heads of the defence forces are concerned in London and also in Washington, and communications pass continuously between the two. There are bodies which exist alike in London and in Washington which have to do with questions that arise out of decisions with respect to strategy; but the fact that one exists in the one country and the other in the other does not mean that either is subordinate to the other. It is part of the arrangement under which the present war is being carried on, on behalf of the United Nations and which recognizes at the head as the combined command, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States.

Mr. CHURCH:

In other words, we are to depend on Washington instead of London for defence in the Pacific.