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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) asked a question respecting passport regulations. I should like to take this opportunity to reply.

The hon. member's question was whether intending visitors to the United States can choose between the new procedure of special border-crossing identification cards and the passport system. The answer is in the affirmative. The new simplified procedure does not supersede the old system but is offered as an additional facility. If an intending visitor should find it more convenient to get a passport than to get the non-immigrant border-crossing identification card, he may do so in the regular way. It is purely a matter of personal convenience, though I am sure that, for the great majority of intending visitors, the new system will prove much more convenient than the regular passport system. In this connection it must not be overlooked that under the passport system the passport alone does not suffice to secure entry into the United States. The holder must also secure a visa, for which a personal appearance before a United States consular officer is essential, or an ordinary bordercrossing card, which requires a personal appearance before a United States immigration officer.

It is understood, of course, that in speaking about the new procedure I am referring only to visits of less than thirty days by Canadians and other British subjects permanently resident in Canada. I understand these are the classes of persons the hon. member has in mind. The new system, as has repeatedly been stated, does not apply to visits of thirty days or longer, and its privileges do not extend to other classes of persons who must use the regular passport system.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee was appointed on February 15, and on March 8 the public accounts and the

report of the auditor general were referred to the committee. So far as I can learn, no steps have yet been taken to call that committee into session. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will have the necessary action taken to call the committee at the earliest possible day. My understanding is that the customary practice is for the chief government whip to give the necessary instructions to the committee branch.

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

Mr. Speaker, on more than one occasion I have stated that it is open to any hon. member to ask that the committee be called. As a necessary first step, the person to be approached in the matter is the chief clerk of committees and private legislation of this house. If the clerk of committees is approached by an hon. member to bring the committee together, the clerk will be perfectly free, indeed it would be part of his duty, to send a notice to the members of the committee. However, where a committee has not been formally convened and a chairman selected, the clerk might, for the convenience of members generally, confer with the chief government whip as to the best time for calling the committee. Thereafter the committee would decide for itself at adjournment when it would reconvene, or leave the decision "to the call of the chair". If any hon. member will make the request to Mr. Dun, that the committee on public accounts be called together, and the latter should speak to the government whip, the government whip will see to it that Mr. Dun is instructed to call the committee at a date which will appear to be suitable.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I thank the Prime Minister for clearing up that point, because there seems to be confusion as to the exact procedure necessary to call the public accounts committee together.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

I have drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister a newspaper dispatch from Washington in which serious allegations are made with respect to Canada's foreign policy. Will he make a statement, either now or at an early day, covering the points raised

Foreign Policy

in the dispatch and indicating the policy of the government, so that there may be no public misunderstanding of Canada's position?

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

As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has just said, he has drawn my attention to a newspaper dispatch from Washington. He mentioned he would ask the question which he has just put with regard to it.

Perhaps I should say in the first place that the particular newspaper dispatch is a communication from the Washington correspondent of the Toronto Telegram to that paper. My hon. friend says that it makes quite serious allegations with respect to Canada's foreign policy. I have read the article. I hardly think that "serious allegations" is the correct term to apply to what appears there; I would say that "mischievous conjectures" would be a better term. But that is, of course, a matter of opinion.

However, with respect to a matter as allimportant as that of foreign policy I hardly think that any statement from the government should be made on the basis of some press communication. There is no more important subject than that which relates to foreign relations and foreign policy. I should be prepared to answer my hon. friend and other hon. members at any time with respect to Canada's foreign policy, on questions which they themselves may address to the ministry. But I do not think I should be expected to deal with communications from press

correspondents to different papers, and make these either the basis or the occasion of a statement on the country's foreign policy.

In order, however, that it may not be said that I am in any way seeking to evade. an immediate statement with respect to

Canada's foreign policy, may I say that at different times I have given a statement to the house on the subject. I made one at considerable length as long ago as May 24, 1938, which is reported in Hansard, page 3178. I shall read one paragraph from that statement. It was given as a statement of Canada's foreign policy at that time. It remains a statement of Canada's policy to-day:

Our foreign and external policy is a policy of peace and friendliness, a policy of trying to look after our own interests and to understand the position of other governments with which we have dealings. It is a policy which takes account of our political connections and traditions, our geographical position, the limited numbers and the racial composition of our people, our stage in economic development, our own internal preoccupations and necessities-

m short, a policy based on the Canadian situation. It is not and cannot be under these circumstances a spectacular head-line policy; it is simply the sum of the countless daily dealings with other countries, the general resultant of an effort to act decently on every issue or incident that arises, and a hope of receiving the same treatment from others.

I believe it is advisable for me to go a step further on this matter of Canada's foreign policy at this time, because in this article and articles which are appearing in other public journals there appears to be an effort to make what is obviously a difficult situation not easier but more difficult; I mean the kind of situation which has arisen everywhere today between the different governments which are united in a common war effort, in their attempts to find a common solution of some of the difficulties with which they are faced. So far as the present government is concerned we intend, wherever and as often as opportunity offers, to do our utmost to make difficult situations less difficult, and to further as far as we can what is likely to prove most in the common interest. That is a broad statement, but being broad it perhaps covers the attitude of the government better than anything else could.

The article to which my hon. friend has drawn my attention raises by implication a question which is the old question of the status of Canada-whether Canada in her international relations from now on is to proceed as a country having rights of her own, sovereign rights of her own; whether she is going to proceed only as one part of the British empire; or whether she is going to proceed as a north American country having special relations with the United States. Questions of the kind are being asked to-day, not for the purpose of helping to win the war, but rather for the purpose-I will not say what the purpose is, but I will say what the effect is- rather having the effect of helping to give enemy countries and their sympathizers who wish to create divisions between different parts of the British empire and between Great Britain and the United States and between the empire, the United States, Canada and other of the united nations, something to go on in the matter of alleging that the united nations are not a completely united body in dealing with questions arising out of the war. It is important I think to emphasize that fact, because it is all-important, more important to-day than ever, that the enemy should know that the united nations are united in their determination not only to win this war but to carry out a policy with respect to peace upon which they all will be agreed. This is doubly necessary for the

Foreign Policy

reason that, the more public discussion is diverted to questions about what is going to be the attitude of this country and that country at the peace table and in the post-war period, the less the country will be impressed with the fact that this war itself is not yet won. Anyone who knows anything about the situation realizes that it is going to be a much longer time before the war is won than most of us recognize at the present time. I do not think that we in Canada have begun to appreciate the difficulties which lie ahead of us this year, with the situation confronting the countries which are associated under the name of the united nations what it is, in the winning of the war. The difficulties are far greater than any of us can begin to realize. I do again submit that our country cannot give too much attention to the fact that the winning of this war as soon as it can be won, is more important than anything else which can possibly be discussed at this time.

So that there will be no mistake, either in this country, the United States, Great Britain, or anywhere else in the world, as to what Canada's position is as a nation in dealing with other nations on these international matters, I am going to place on Hansard again a declaration, known as the Balfour declaration, which was made at the imperial conference of 1926 in London, and which has been agreed to by every nation of the British commonwealth, the United Kingdom and all the dominions, as setting forth the basis on which as between themselves and in their dealings with others, matters will be adjusted. I quote from the report of the imperial conference of 1926 summary of proceedings under the heading of "Status of Great Britain and the Dominions", page 12 of the report:

The committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a constitution for the British empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried.

There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development-we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.

A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British empire by the

aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual cooperation easy.

Such a criticism, however, completely ignores the historic situation. The rapid evolution of the oversea dominions during the last fifty years has involved many complicated adjustments of old political machinery to changing conditions. The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made this impossible of attainment by the way of federation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it has been steadily sought. Every self-governing member of the empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever.

But no account, however accurate, of the negative relations in which Great Britain and the dominions stand to each other can do more than expi'ess a portion of the truth. The British empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its lifeblood. Free cooperation is its instrument. Peace, security, and progress are among its objects. Aspects of all these great themes have been discussed at the present conference; excellent results have been thereby obtained. . And though every dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its cooperation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled.

Equality of status, so far as Britain and the domiinons are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-imperial relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something move than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery-machinery which can, from time to time, be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world.

To-day more than at any time in the history of the British empire or the British commonwealth of nations, by whichever name you wish to call it, is there a need from time to time of adapting to the ever-changing circumstances of the world the existing machinery which we have as between the different parts of the empire. I do hope that it will be recognized that whatever will help to interpret, not to our own people only but to the people of the United States and of other countries, the true and exact nature of the relations between the different parts of the British empire and between the British empire and other parts of the world, the more it will assist in helping the cause which we all have in common.

When this country went into the war it did so as a result of the action of this parliament taken on its own account, a decision reached in accordance with what it believed to be, and certainly was, the will of the people

Labour Conditions

of Canada. In all our relations with other parts of the empire and with other countries, so far as the present administration is concerned, we intend to stand on the ground of a status of our own equal to that of each and all of the self-governing British communities-the dominions and the United Kingdom included.

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

I think it would be of value if at an early day the Prime Minister would call an item in his estimates so that there might be a discussion of Canada's external affairs. It would enable us to arrive at a clearer understanding of some of the things which, as he suggests, may becloud the issue.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am anxious that the house shall get on with its business as rapidly as possible. Before we take up any new subject for discussion we should conclude with the matters in hand.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I agree. I meant not to leave it until the dying days of the session.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I shall undertake with pleasure to see that matters of foreign policy are discussed before that time.