February 1, 1943

NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

I am not going to say that they get high salaries, because I do not think they do. That was not the point I was

trying to make. When they came to appoint a new general manager, these nine members of the board of governors could not find anybody in the whole eleven and one-half million people in Canada to appoint except one of their own members. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) can now make his interjection about the high salary paid to that official.

The report of the committee went further and asked that on the board there should be adequate representation of farm and labour. Where is it? When Doctor Thompson left the board a vacancy was created which has remained ever since. No working man has been appointed to the board. When great authority is placed in the hands of government owned corporations, the government should be particularly careful about the composition of the boards from occupational and other points of view. This care has not always been exercised.

I ask the government to give consideration to a policy which will bring back the supremacy of parliament once more, not just in theory but in practice, in order that some abuses which apparently have grown up shall not be allowed to continue and to extend. For quite a long time a clamour has arisen from all parts of this house for a better distribution of work. That clamour has not arisen just from one or two members on a certain side of the house. It has not been confined to any one political party. It echoes pretty generally t'he feeling all over the house that appropriate use should be made of the membership of the House of Commons, to say nothing of the embarrassing position in which the members of another chamber find themselves during this time. If the government's policy for the efficient use of manpower is. demonstrated by the way in which it uses the man-power in this and in another chamber, then I think some criticism must be offered of this master man-power plan.

There is another matter which has been in my thoughts for a long time. As members of the house we have a responsibility which perhaps we do not always shoulder, which perhaps we do not always realize. With every ounce of emphasis at my command I say that we should try to elevate the prestige of this chamber to a point higher than it is to-day. If we are to be proper instruments of democracy, we should so conduct ourselves in this chamber-we are all sinners in this regard and what. I am saying applies to myself as well as to other members, but that should not stop me-that the men and women who fill these galleries, whether they be from the farming sections, whether they represent labour, or

The Address-Mr. Graydon

more particularly whether they represent the branches of our armed forces, may be proud of the proceedings of the chamber. This is more important now than it has ever been.

I have a feeling that in many instances people do not go away with that thought in their minds. If democracy is to approach perfection, I think we must go a long way yet. There never was a time in the history of Canada when the people watched this chamber more carefully and with more interest. Everything we do, everything we say is recorded in the minds and in the thoughts of great sections of our people. I ask the Prime Minister and you, Mr. Speaker: Can this chamber meet that test at the present time? If it cannot, then we must see that it does meet that test no matter what reorientation or changes may be necessary. It is essential for the strengthening of the democratic state in this dominion.

There are many reforms which members of this house could suggest. I cannot agree with the answer given to me last Friday by the Prime Minister when I asked for a modernization of the rules and procedure of the house. He said that we should not do it in time of war; but it does not make any difference whether we are at war or at peace, the obligation faces us. We cannot delay in bringing this chamber to the point where it will be an exact and perfect reflection of the men and women across Canada whom we represent. I am so completely convinced of this that I hope you will accept my apologies for being so vehemently insistent. This chamber should be the reflection of a great dominion, but is it the true reflection that we would want it to be? That is a challenge which we have to meet. We are anxious to contribute wherever we can to creating a condition whereby this chamber will be a more exact reflection of what the ordinary man and woman across Canada expect in their representative body. Therefore I say to the Prime Minister and the government, let us be very careful how we conduct ourselves in this house. All of us make mistakes. Perhaps, being an amateur as leader of the opposition, I shall make more mistakes than a good many others. But whatever mistakes we make, let them be honest mistakes. The people of this country do not mind mistakes, but they want to know that when they are made, they are made with good intentions.

In Great Britain the prestige of parliament is high, because the leaders have kept it high. Perhaps there is no closer relationship anywhere in the world between parliament and people than in Britain to-day. I do not wish to make comparisons between our own house and the British House of Commons, but we have an example over there which we should try to emulate. I should like to see the Prime 72537-3i

Minister and all members of this house make every possible effort to measure up to what is expected of the parliaments of the British commonwealth of nations.

I like to think of that peerless leader of Britain in this period of war. I like to think of the prestige he has given to the British house, and of what he has done for public-morale in his own country and others which are- fighting along with it. I recall the closing: words of the British Prime Minister's speech in the spring of 1940 when he assumed the leadership of that great nation, at a time when it looked as though the whole world were collapsing, when it seemed as though democracy were about to perish from the face of the earth, when Britain seemed in imminent danger of invasion. With the thunder of battle overhead, without a shudder, without a shiver, with the grim determination and courgae for which he -is noted, he lifted the British people, yes, he lifted the world, and he uttered a challenge which will go down through the halls of time and should, I believe, find an echo here:

We shall never surrender. . . .

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. . . .We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and streets and in the hills. . . .We shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island, or even part of it, is subjugated and starving, then our empire across the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, will carry on the struggle, until in God's good time, the new world, in all its strength and might, sets forth to the rescue and liberation of the old. . . .

That, Mr. Speaker, is the challenge I leave with this parliament-with the Prime Minister and all of us-to see to it that the kind of leadership which produced that statement and built the morale of Britain shall be given by members and leaders alike in this House of Commons. I ask every hon. member to think carefully and seriously of our duty and our obligation as the people's representatives.

I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) in amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that the following words be added to the address:

"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:

(a) to provide an adequate plan for the effective use of Canada's man and woman power:

(b) to adopt and carry through a rational labour policy which will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful position as one of the major partners in our Canadian democracy: and

(c) to provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income."

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon.

friend the new leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), at the outset of his remarks, stated -that he thought he would have to ask hon. members for their sympathy because this was the first occasion on which he has addressed the house as leader of the opposition. May I say to my hon. friend that I think all members of the house will agree with me when I say that they envied him his facility of utterance and of constructive criticism rather than of feeling that he was in need of any sympathy.

As one who has gone through the experience which my hon. friend is having to-day, I have quietly been recalling some of the sensations which I experienced at the time; and I must say that I should feel happy indeed if I thought I had made as good a presentation in my first effort as leader of the opposition as he has made to-day.

However, I do think he has fallen into one or two of the errors which I myself fell into at the time-no doubt, due to a certain immaturity and lack of experience of the way in which parliament views some things. One of those mistakes, I would say, was that my hon. friend had far too many grievances in his first presentation to the house. He rather spoiled his address by seeking to cover all the ground at once. And may I say that I think he devoted far too much of his time to the Winnipeg convention. I believe the country is still much more interested in the war, and the effective prosecution of the war, and more concerned that parliament should devote its time mainly to those considerations which are vital as respects the war, than it is in the platform which was drawn up by my hon. friend and his friends at Winnipeg and its presentation in this house. However, I do recall that -when I was leader of the opposition, I had a feeling that it was part of the duty one owed to one's party to see that its platform was spread out on Hansard in as extensive a manner as possible, since that was one way in which it was easy for members of a party to see that all parts of the country were supplied with copies of the platform at the country's expense. I imagine my hon. friend has had that consideration in mind himself to-day.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Karl Kenneth Homuth

National Government

Mr. HOMUTH:

A part of our platform is now in the speech from the throne.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Well, my hon. friends have taken about twenty-five years to catch up with the party on this side of the house in some of the policies which they are advocating to-day, and they are quite welcome

FMr. Graydon.]

to any satisfaction it may give them in seeing some things which they have been recently advocating set forth in the speech from the throne.

In that connection, may I say that I do not regard it as an entire misfortune that all the parties in the house to-day should be taking a more profound interest in questions of social security than some of them have in the past. If that were not so, I- should think that some of us at least had failed entirely to appreciate what is really fundamental in the great struggle which is taking place in the world to-day. It is a struggle which, above all, so far as the allied forces are concerned, aims at the preservation of freedom and, along with that, at a social revolution which will see that more in the way of equality of opportunity and more in the way of freedom from want and from fear shall become the lot of the great mass of mankind.

I appreciate very much my hon. friend's reference to the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He said that he did not altogether like the fulsome praise that is indulged in at the beginning of sessions with reference to speeches made by mover and seconder, and he thought it was just as well to get rid of some of these traditions that have grown up. I am quite in agreement with him on the question of fulsome praise; but though I may be Liberal and not Tory in my sympathies, I am not prepared to say that I should like to get rid of all tradition. I think tradition has its place, particularly in the affairs of parliament, and I believe that the tradition which permits to members on one side of the house an occasional opportunity to say something that is pleasant to those opposite is a very good one. I do agree with my hon. friend, however, that the speeches which were delivered by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Halle) were exceptional in many particulars. They were exceptionally well delivered, and they were exceptional also in what they contained. I have read through both speeches since we heard them in the house; and I believe that, considered from the point of view of what, in a time of war, it is appropriate and most helpful for a member of parliament to say in the House of Commons, it would be impossible to find their equal in any speeches delivered on the address at any previous time.

I believe that this House of Commons was particularly proud to see two of its members wearing His Majesty's uniform, one coming from the old province of Ontario and the other from the old province of Quebec, addressing

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

the house at this time of war, at the opening of the session, using the words which they addressed to all who were here assembled. My hon. friends were right when they said that their selection was not a 'compliment merely to themselves, though it might well have been so merited, nor merely a compliment to their constituencies, which they were kind enough to suggest that it also might have been, but that it was first and foremost intended as a recognition of the service the armed forces of our country are rendering to Canada and the cause of freedom to-day. Not only that, it was also a recognition of the number of the members of the house who today are serving in the armed forces of Canada. We may all be proud that so large a percentage of the membership of this house is composed of men on active service at the present time.

What I felt most about the speeches of my hon. friends was that each brought us very close to the armed forces and to the services *which they are rendering. One hon. member had just returned from England; both are going overseas very shortly. Their addresses brought home to all of us, I think, in a more intimate way than would otherwise have been possible, the magnitude and the perils of war and the service being rendered not to our country only but to the world through Canada's war effort at this time.

Their speeches also, I felt, helped to remind us of the unity which our country has happily preserved through these trying times. Each of these speakers spoke wholly irrespective of the province from which he came, wholly irrespective of the race from which he is descended, wholly irrespective of his own native tongue. They spoke solely as Canadians, and in speaking as Canadians, they reminded us of the spirit which underlies the service of our men abroad, and which was so well expressed by Abbe Sabourin when, in giving an account of the spirit with which the men who served at Dieppe entered upon that great reconnaissance, he said, "We went there not thinking of our faith, not thinking of our tongue, or of tradition; we went there thinking of Canada, our country which we were seeking to defend, and the cause of freedom which we were championing at that time."

Members on all sides of the house will rejoice that that spirit of Canadian unity underlying the services which are being rendered at this time has been made so manifest and clear in the first speeches that have been delivered in this house.

There was one other thought that came to my mind as both hon. members spoke. It was what they felt service in the armed forces had

afforded members of those services in terms of a wider outlook. It was apparent from their remarks that, in their opinion, service in the armed forces had an effect upon all who had enlisted, in enlarging their outlook, in giving them a greater appreciation of common human needs and, in association with that, an enlargement of the expectation of what should await them when the war is over. In other words, they made clear to us that, while they are fighting at the front to help to preserve our country and our freedom, they have a right to expect that those in this parliament, those who remain behind in this country, will so conduct its affairs that when they return to Canada they will find a better condition awaiting them than has been possible heretofore at any time. Both have given us in their addresses the keynote for the discussion which we should have in this parliament during the session. If we can follow the example which they have set of avoiding recriminations, of stressing the real significance of this war and also the importance of the post-war period; if we confine our discussions along those lines, our service will be one which will long be remembered and appreciated by the country.

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition began and concluded his own remarks by reference to ideals in public life, and maintaining the prestige of parliament. May I say that with all that he said of that as an objective I am in most hearty accord. I think I can say in the presence of all who are here that in the twenty-seven years I have been a member of this parliament I have from the beginning sought, so far as it lay within my power, to maintain the highest traditions with respect to parliament and its proceedings. I think that, in the years when I was the leader of the opposition, some seven in all, and in the years I have been leader of the government, now nearly sixteen, I have throughout done the best I possibly could to maintain a high tradition with respect to public life, both within the halls of parliament, and on the platform in the country.

Perhaps my hon. friend while making that appeal did not altogether consider that in some ways it might have seemed to be a reflection upon the members of this house. The other day my hon. friend the former leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) spoke of his effort to maintain high traditions in debate and decorum in the house, and I said I thought he had succeeded in setting a good example in that respect, although all of us, as my hon. friend said, are liable at moments to slip a little. But I do maintain that if

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

one contrasts the proceedings in this parliament with those of any other legislative assembly on earth, they will be found to compare favourably with those of other assemblies.

My hon. friend referred to the British House of Commons, a noble institution. It has maintained high standards; but I submit that any one who has followed the discussions in the British House of Commons, even in this time of war, will have observed that, in many particulars, they have been more acrimonious than has been the case with discussions that have taken place here. And as far as comparisons with what takes place in congress or elsewhere are concerned, I think this House of Commons can stand on its own feet without fear. However, I am pleased that my hon. friend is going to do all in his power to see that this high standard is maintained, and I shall certainly do what I can to cooperate with him toward that end.

My hon. friend asked me to speak on a large number of subjects. I had rather made up my mind that I would follow a different course this session if possible; that I 'would not make speeches that were too -long. I have been criticized a great deal on that score, and I must say as I listened to my hon. friend to-day I began to see that such criticism may be very just. Therefore I hope he will not expect me to answer to-day all the questions he has raised. But at the appropriate time during the course of the session I shall do the best I can to give him the information he wishes.

He spoke at considerable length of what he referred to as dissatisfaction with the administration. He spoke more particularly of dissatisfaction with what is sometimes referred to as a growing bureaucracy. My hon. friend referred to it in different connections. He referred to it in speaking of the Winnipeg programme. He referred to it as a departure from responsible government because of the powers given to boards, and the orders passed under the War Measures Act.

No one deplores more than I do, and I am sure hon. members in the house generally do, that, in a time of war, it is necessary to establish. boards to do what responsible ministers in time of peace are able to manage without such additions to the administration. But in times of war it is simply impossible for ordinary government departments to hope to administer the different policies that have to be carried out except with the aid of boards of one kind and another to assist the ministers.

My hon. friends opposite have changed their attitude very much toward the government in

that particular. I remember in the first year of the war, and even up to late in 1941, we were being told over and over again that what the country wanted was not political control in matters pertaining to the war. What they said was wanted were independent bodies, bodies that would1 be free of political control altogether. The leader of the opposition of the day was continually saying that the administration was seeking far too much to control matters. Look at the financial papers of the country and see the extent to which they, at that time, were saying that the government was keeping the administration of all these matters far too much in its own hands; that we ought to have experts, leading men in industry and business throughout the country, enlist them in the service of the government, give them a free hand and not interfere with them, allow them to act independently.

But now that the government has enlisted very large numbers of business men and business experts in the administration of war affairs, my hon. friends say, No! no! these gentlemen should not be allowed to administer these things. The government ought to take into its own hahds the control through the responsible ministers who are the heads of the different departments; in other words, there should be more in the way of political control. It is easy to criticize, but I ask hon. members to place themselves in the position of the administration in dealing with war affairs. I submit that the only way in which it is possible for the government to carry on in time of war is to have allied with it in matters of administration such organizations as are necessary, organizations improvised in connection with carrying out the affairs of the administration. That does not mean that the government or any minister of the crown ceases to be responsible for the administration of affairs; the responsibility must always rest on the ministry.

In order to bring home more clearly to hon. members what I have in mind, may I say that when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), dealing with the affairs of his department, has made the appointments of the military authorities, which he thinks are necessary and best, the generals and other officers who have command on the military side, he is still finally responsible for any mistakes which they make. The last thing, however, he would be expected to do is to be continually interfering with those who have been given a particular task to perform on the field of battle.

It is exactly the same with respect to the ministry in relation to the other departments which have to do with the administration of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

war affairs. The government's responsibility lies in appointing men whom it can trust and giving them the authority to carry out their duties with as little interference as possible. If the government were to be continually interfering in the day-to-day administration, it would be impossible to secure men who would be prepared to serve.

I am not trying to excuse the faults that I know exist in human nature. It is impossible to get any organization of men and not find among the number some who will be arrogant, some who will be carried away with an exaggerated sense of their own importance, some who will do most absurd, ridiculous and arbitrary things. As these men are discovered I agree they should be let out of the administration, one by one, as rapidly as may be possible. But looking over the men who to-day are giving their services to this country as experts assisting the government in the administration of our war effort, I do say that it would be very difficult to find in any country a body of men rendering finer service.

The word "bureaucracy" is one that catches the public fancy; it is a word used very freely. But let me ask about the present position. A bureaucracy is usually understood as being a body of public servants who are permanently secure in their positions and therefore able to take an autocratic attitude. Are the men who are administering the war effort of this country confined to the civil service of Canada? As far as the civil service of the country is concerned, I am afraid that it has had far too few additions to its numbers during the course of the war. For the most part the civil servants have simply had to work harder and to work longer hours; and a more devoted body of men than there is in the civil service, particularly among those at the heads of departments, I say cannot be found in any public service. But the men who make up the larger number assisting the government in the war effort are men holding only temporary positions. They are not men who have come into the service of the government of this country, to remain there indefinitely. They are there for the period of the war, or for such time during that period as they may be prepared and free to give to the public service. They cannot be described as a bureaucracy in any true sense of that word.

But is there not another explanation behind everything else? Is not the fault that is being found with those administering the war effort of Canada to-day primarily an objection to the restrictions being placed upon people at this time, the controls which necessarily must be exercised over the public at large in time of

war? That is something which cannot possibly be escaped. We in this country have been freer, I suppose, than the people of almost any other country. We have had less in the way of control and more in the way of freedom of enterprise and of individual freedom. But in a time such as this, when a country is engaged in total war, that freedom necessarily must be restricted, and greatly restricted; and it is these restrictions that are causing the irritation.

My hon. friend has been referring to the duties and responsibilities of members of this house. I think there is an obligation upon every member of this house to help interpret that aspect of our war effort to the people of this country, instead of making it more difficult for the government or these administrators in the discharge of their public duties. We have a right to ask that this aspect of the question shall be present at all times in the minds of all in our discussions here.

Just in case I should fail to recall it later on, I should like to say a word at this point about the discussions in parliament during this session, and I do so after having reflected very carefully upon what I consider is likely to be the tendency in the course of this year's discussions. During the recent past we as a government have been told that we must not have anything whatever to do with politics; that this is a time of war and that, therefore, there must be no domestic politics discussed. Recently we had a convention of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, led by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), at which a political programme was brought forward. We have just had the convention at which my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Graydon) was present and which he helped to arrange, and a political platform was drawn up by that party. I do not know whether there have been conventions of some other parties recently formed; but, at any rate, we now have several parties in this house, each having a political platform of its own. There is a general impression in the minds of a good many that this probably will be the last session of this parliament, and consequently that they had better begin to educate the public with respect to the various contributions they hope to make to the public welfare. I suppose that may be an inevitable tendency; but, having regard to the position of the world to-day; having regard to the Very critical stage which the war has reached, may I express the hope that we shall not fall into the error of devoting too much time to discussing the merits of respective political platforms instead of keeping our thoughts centred, above everything

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

else, upon the fact that to-day we are in the midst of the greatest struggle for survival with which any people have ever been faced.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

If my

right hon. friend will allow me, he will agree that there is one way to avoid that, and he has it within his power to announce that way.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I say to my hon. friend that I thought it would not be long before we would see that we had two leaders opposite. But he and I will have a talk about it, to see if we cannot keep our young friend in order.

I want to emphasize this point, because today, with the great successes which fortunately have attended the arms of the allied powers; with what has taken place since the last meeting of this house in the improved position in Russia, in Africa, in the southwest Pacific, and, indeed, wherever the allied powers have been fighting, I think there is in the minds of a great many people the belief that this year is going to see the end of the war. It is not for me to try to discourage optimism in the mind of anyone; I think we need all we can get in the way of support for our continued efforts; but there could be no greater mistake in the world than to believe that we have advanced any further than this, that the allied and the axis powers are a little more evenly matched than they have been at any time heretofore. The power of Germany remains greater, I believe, than anyone in this chamber can begin to comprehend, and that power has to be destroyed before the liberation of the countries that have been oppressed can be brought about. But in addition to the power of Germany there is the might of Japan, which is great indeed; and these powers still have to be overthrown before any of us can begin to concentrate in the main on what is going to come in the post-war period. There was a remark made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce in his address the other day which I thought very sound. He said he did not think there was any reason to fear what the conclusion of this war would be, but that we should take great care in any estimate we might make of its duration. This war may be and probably will be very much longer than any one of us begins to comprehend; and unless we direct our energies primarily to seeing to it that, first and foremost, we do those things necessary to bring it speedily to a conclusion, we are not going to help either ourselves or the allied powers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I trust that so far as this session is concerned it will not be thought that I am seeking in any way to

abridge debate or discussion if, with my responsibility for leadership in the house, I do the best I possibly can to keep the minds of hon. members centred on the winning of the war-and that in as short a time as may be possible.

My hon. friend has asked me to speak about the conference at Casablanca. May I say that in all particulars it was similar to conferences which have taken place between Mr. Churchill and the President on three previous occasions when these two great leaders, one of Great Britain, and the other of the United States, met in conference together. As hon. members will recall the first meeting was off the coast of Newfoundland; the second was in Washington in December of 1941 and January of 1942, while the third was in Washington in June of 1942. The recent meeting, as hon. members are aware, took place at Casablanca in North Africa.

As I have said, the meeting at Casablanca was a meeting between these two leaders and their military experts, the civil and military leaders of Great Britain and the civil and military leaders of the United States. I was not invited to be present at the conference- and that, I think, for the best of reasons. My position or rather that of Canada is similar in all particulars, or at least in many particulars, to that of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and some other parts of the British commonwealth. Not only is it similar to the position of other parts of the commonwealth, but in many particulars it is similar to that of other of the united nations. The countries at war to-day are large in number. There are now some thirty countries forming what are known as the united nations. If one of the united nations is to be invited to a conference between two great leaders, there is every reason why other nations should feel that they were entitled to a like invitation.

From the beginning of the war I have had to face this question, and be prepared to malce answer to it: As the leader of the government in Canada, am I in a time of war going to make more difficult than it is the situation which exists, or am I going to try to do all I possibly can to be as reasonable as it is possible for a man to be, and thereby make the situation easier than it would otherwise be?

I could this afternoon protest to the house that Canada had not been invited to the conference. Were I to do so, how much would I be helping the war effort of this country or the combined effort of the united nations? In the first place, as I have said, I do not see how it would have been possible to have singled out one country for invitation, and not to have invited others. But more than

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

that, I believe we have to do one of two things, when it comes to the matter of supreme strategy: either we must have confidence in those who are at the head of the united nations' war effort of to-day, do all we can to let the world see that we have that confidence, and assist them in every way we can, or we must take a different attitude, one which to my mind could only result in disaster.

But when I say that countries other than Great Britain and the United States were not represented at the Casablanca conference, it does not mean that the governments of those countries were not fully aware of the discussions that were going to take place there, and that they have not been informed with respect to discussions that have taken place. In connection with all matters pertaining to the war there is a certain procedure that has been built up-improvised, if you like. It has had to be improvised, because the war is something new, and the situation changes from day to day. And in that improvisation of the war effort of so many nations, tacitly if you like- and I think more . than tacitly; I could say openly-there has been a recognition of the fact that the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States were the two men around whom all could rally in support of any policies concerning which they might give the final word. In the shaping of that policy every part of the British empire and all of the united nations, in so far as it is possible for them to be consulted and informed in the matter, have a part.

Our chiefs of staff in this city are in constant touch with the combined chiefs of staff having their headquarters at Washington. The war committee of the cabinet is informed of the discussions taking place there from day to day. We have a permanent liaison officer, an official of the government, who is there at the present time, and is there also throughout the year. We are entitled to follow discussions and to be heard respecting any aspect of the war situation we may wish to present. Canada's interests in these matters are placed fully before the boards that are continuously sitting and dealing with these matters.

A decision reached at Casablanca is not a decision come to suddenly by the President and the Prime Minister. Such decision is the outcome of discussions which have extended over many months, and which are finally crystallized in a formal way by the heads of these two great countries. So far as Canada is concerned, there is no man in any part of the world who has had more intimate and close association with the British staff than

has General MoNaughton, the head of the Canadian forces. On military matters, General McNaughton, I venture to say, knows the mind of the staff in Great Britain as well as any member of the staff knows his own. mind. And. they know General McNaughton's mind. And when British staff officers go to Casablanca they dio not go to support a .policy which they believe is superior to the views of General McNaughton; they go to support a policy which they know has been fully considered before the matter eveT came up in conference there.

I do not think I need go into detail in connection with that matter. However, expecting that the question would be raised this afternoon, I thought it best not to trust myself to express myself extemporaneously on the point, and prepared some notes which I intend to place on Hansard.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock I was speaking of the conference at Casablanca, and had just stated that having regard to the care with which any statement on a matter so all-important as that of the conference at Casablanca should be prepared, I preferred to read from notes which I had prepared rather than to trust to the expression at the moment of what I might say. Naturally this house will realize that anything that is said in any part of the British commonwealth, if it comes from the lips of the leader of a government in any of those parts, will be taken in all other parts of the world, including enemy countries, as something which is expressive of the policy of the united nations as a *whole. I make that statement because there are many questions I should like to answer, many questions that I am in position to answer but am not free to answer. I am not free to answer for the simple reason that they affect all the governments to which I have referred. Without the opportunity of conferring with them and obtaining their consent I would be venturing beyond what I think would be proper to attempt to answer in their name as well as in my own. For the present, therefore, with respect to Casablanca I shall content myself with the following statement.

The talks in Casablanca were discussions between the heads of the United Kingdom and

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

United States governments and their principal military advisers, in direct continuation of arrangements made during Mr. Churchill's first visit to Washington for the establishment of combined United Kingdom-United States machinery for cooperation in various phases of the war effort. These combined arrangements were designed to effect closer coordination between these two countries, with each of which Canada maintains especially close and intimate relations. There has not yet been developed out of the combined United Kingdom-United States organizations the more comprehensive institutional organization which a total war effort of all the united nations probably requires. The difficulties in the way which will have to be overcome should be obvious to everybody. Nobody would wish to sacrifice the speed and efficiency which effective strategy demands to the formal exigencies of international representative institutions.

To wage war effectively, all our governments have had to assume unprecedented powers and responsibilities and have had to delegate unprecedented powers and responsibilities. There is constantly room for improvement in the plans by which we are mobilizing our own war effort and integrating it with the war effort of our allies. There has been a good deal of pretty successful improvisation to meet the means of war conditions. New types of joint arrangements, new agencies for mutual aid, new channels for communication and consultation, are being worked out. The framework of over-all cooperation is found in our association with our allies as members of the united nations. This framework is being progressively filled in and strengthened, but the job of constructing a workable international organization for the winning of the war and the maintenance of the peace is far from completed. There are obvious gaps and anomalies in the present arrangements to worry people who seek symmetry above all. I hope to see some of these gaps closed and anomalies removed.

We must somehow succeed in developing methods and instruments of cooperation which will strengthen the spirit of partnership in which all free peoples, large and small, are associated in our common struggle. In doing so we must not prejudice or compromise-in the slightest degree-the concentration of responsibility for strategic decision upon which the successful prosecution of the war depends.

I think that, statement will appeal to the common sense of members of this house. It will be apparent that however much we may desire to have organizations that may seem all-embracing, the form of organization which is likely to be most effective is something

which has to come into being as events help to determine the situation. When Mr. Churchill and the President met at Washington in December, 1941, and January, 1942, no one in any part of the British Commonwealth or in any of the united nations took exception to those two great leaders conferring together along with their military experts on the score that all other parts of the commonwealth or all the other united nations were not represented. The same was true when Mr. Churchill and the President met again in Washington in June of last year.

On one of those occasions, as hon. members will recall, Mr. Churchill visited Ottawa and was present at a meeting of the war committee of the cabinet at which he gave a statement to my colleagues and myself of the discussions which he and the President had had. I think I may recall also to the minds of hon. members that when the President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain first met at Washington I was invited by both to be present, and I was present at conferences that took place between them. I was not present at all the conferences, but I was kept very fully informed. Also at the time that the President and Mr. Churchill met in June, I was invited again to be present in Washington while they were there. I had many conversations with both of them individually and together in reference to the different matters they had been discussing.

I think I am at liberty to say now that, at the Washington conference in June, plans with respect to the invasion of North Africa were fully discussed. I had inside knowledge of those plans at that time. They were not carried out for some little time thereafter, but they were known to the military advisers of the governments of the united nations concerned, and later were made known to members of the war committee of our government in so far as it was desirable that they should be known.

In many of these matters of strategy there are obvious reasons why the information should be confined to military experts more particularly rather than made known generally to the civil authorities. I could mention other instances. Perhaps I am not disclosing a secret when I say that the President of the United States invited me just a month or two ago to visit him in Washington. I spent two days and a half with him as his guest at the White House. We were practically alone in our discussions in the White House at the time, and on that occasion I received from the President the fullest measure of his confidence with regard to matters pertaining to

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

the war. I have enjoyed a similar confidence in communications from Mr. Churchill. I am at the present time at liberty to say that when Mr. Churchill was in Russia having his conversations with Mr. Stalin he communicated with me fully with respect to those conferences. If there were any reason in the world to believe that the Canadian government was not receiving the fullest confidence of Mr. Churchill and his colleagues in the British government, or, as we have an equal right to receive it, in a certain measure, from the President of the United States and those who surround him, I would be the first one to take exception to a procedure which did not keep us fully informed. But I am sure hon. members of the house will agree with me that matters of the kind-the subjects w'hich are discussed, or matters incidental thereto-cannot be made known generally. But what I would like hon. members to appreciate is that some of these things place a very heavy burden upon whoever has to carry the responsibility of maintaining secrecy concerning them. I think I may ask from hon. gentlemen opposite that in so far as is possible for them to do so they will realize that I have a very great responsibility in the matter of confidences, confidences which have to be maintained if the war effort is to be carried on successfully; and I trust that they will not embarrass me by asking questions which it is impossible to answer without disclosing information that should not be disclosed.

My hon. friend has spoken about the importance of an imperial war cabinet. I thought that subject had been settled a year ago, if not before that. Since it was a subject of discussion in this house, Mr. Churchill himself has been here, and in this very chamber he has talked with members of all parties. I know that this question of an imperial war cabinet was discussed with him by various members of this house. Mr. Churchill has exactly the same view, I venture to say, as I myself have and as I have expressed in this house with regard to the position of an imperial war cabinet at this time. I may say that I have had the expression of the view of General Smuts of South Africa. It concurs in all particulars with my own. I have had personal conversations with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Fraser; his view is the same as my own. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Curtin, but I happen to know that his views with respect to an imperial war cabinet and its functioning at a time of war are similar to my own. Indeed, I do not know anyone in a responsible position in any part of the British commonwealth to-day who takes other than the view that for the prime ministers to be . leaving their own countries to go and sit as 72537-4}

members of some imperial war cabinet in London would be the greatest possible mistake. Each country should, along with all else, attend to its own individual problems at a time like the present, and we can only -work and cooperate successfully in different parts of the empire if, first of all, each makes perfectly sure that matters which aTe of immediate concern to his own country receive the immediate attention of the leader of the government of that country.

But it does not follow that because there is not some outward and visible sign of an imperial war cabinet such as existed in the last war, and perhaps, to a certain extent, was necessary in the last war, there is not the most effective possible conference and consultation and cooperation between all parts of the British empire. The agencies of communication to-day are very different from what they were at the time of the last war. Anyone who reads Sir Robert Borden's memoirs will see the reason why he laid stress on an imperial war cabinet in London. He could not get any information from London; he did not know what was happening with respect to many of the matters which were being decided; he felt it very necessary that Canada should know on what grounds decisions were being made which were affecting her forces, and the only way that seemed possible to achieve that end at that time was either for Sir Robert himself to attend or for him to have one of his colleagues represent him at the council table in London.

The situation is very different to-day. Since Sir Robert Borden's day we have built up about as perfect a system of communication and consultation between different parts of the commonwealth as it is possible to have. Every day the government receives not one, but many dispatches, direct from the government of Britain relating to matters immediately affecting the war. There is not a major decision with respect to which Canada could be even remotely concerned that is not a subject of communication between us. There have been, I must say, one or.two occasions where decisions were reached very quickly in Britain and communicated to us immediately afterwards. Where those cases have arisen they have been matters which, in the opinion of the British government, did not permit the delay of so much as an hour or two in the matter of a decision. But may I say with respect to that and I could not give a better illustration of the importance of not resorting to the old method of consultation in the present war, with regard to any matter of real importance which is to be decided in Britain, if a prime minister attending an imperial con-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

ference is to be other than an autocrat or dictator and to settle everything by his own word and decision, he would wish to communicate with his colleagues in Canada and get their views and the collective view, before he gave an official decision in the name of his own country. I have been at several conferences in Britain, and I know something about how matters are decided at the council table. I was present in the war cabinet in England, as hon. members know, a little over a year ago, and I must say that what I saw and felt as a member of a war council sitting in London only helped to emphasize what I am saying to the house at the present time, namely, the importance to a minister who wishes to be effective in decisions that he is required to make, of being able to say that he speaks, not in his own name alone, but in the name of his colleagues; and further, the importance of his having with him at the time he is making his decisions the expert officers of the departments which are immediately concerned. In attending a war cabinet meeting in London the ministers have, either sitting by their sides or in adjoining rooms, experts who come and give them the information on which they base their decisions; and these experts give the information as a result of long and carefully prepared consultation in advance. I go to London and take my place at a war cabinet, and unless I take the staff of military headquarters from the Department of National Defence, the staff of the Department of External Affairs, and officials from some other departments of the government, I am not in a position to say what the government of Canada is prepared to support in the House of Commons of Canada. But the way in which matters work out to-day is this, that if a question of importance comes up on which the views of Canada and the different parts of the commonwealth are desired, I may receive a cable at my office at eleven o'clock in the morning; I can have my colleagues together at half-past eleven; and in a great many cases I am able to send a reply at half-past twelve; if I am not, there is the best of reasons why that reply should be held over until there is an opportunity of getting expert advice from different sources here. But with respect to any decision that Canada makes it is important that we should have the decision made in the atmosphere of this new world in which we live and where we can take account not only of the feeling of Canada but also of possible relationships of questions arising that will be of concern as well to the United States. Time and time again, during this war, opinions have been sent from Canada on possible repercussions

which would result in the United States or in some other part of the British commonwealth. I am sure that the British government would be the first to acknowledge that those opinions have been of the utmost service to the British government and to the common cause.

I say, therefore, that what we have to-day is a continuing conference between cabinets of the British commonwealth. Surely nothing could be better than that. Instead of a single war council at London to-day there is a collective cabinet, a cabinet composed of the cabinets of the nations of the British commonwealth. True, its members are not all sitting in one room, but you have a cabinet in Ottawa, one in Australia, one in New Zealand, one in South Africa, and one in London, all pooling their information there and in the different centres which I have mentioned; and out of that means of consultation and communication are evolved the different policies which are given expression to in one form or another. That is my answer to my hon. friend when he says that we have not the outward and visible sign of unity which we should have.

This is a world war, and methods that have proved adequate in the past are inadequate to-day. I am happy to be able to say that,, with one or two exceptions, I cannot see that we have suffered in the least by reason of not having further representation than we have at the present time in London.

May I add that we have in London a member of the Privy Council of Canada in the person of the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, the High Commissioner, one who has had a great deal of experience in public affairs and who enjoys the full confidence of the British government. Hon. members may not be aware that after important meetings of the war cabinet one of its members calls together the representatives of the governments of the different parts of the British commonwealth and advises them of what has been discussed in the war cabinet, and with respect to any matter that relates particularly to any one part of the commonwealth the fullest information is given on that particular subject.

Mr. Massey keeps in constant communication with myself and the Department of External Affairs and gives us this added information. In addition to that, we have in Ottawa a former member of the British government, the Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald, than whom there could be no abler diplomat or one who has a better understanding of government, and he is receiving day by day from his government information which he imparts to our government. Further, I receive in regard

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

to the most important matters direct communications from Mr. Churchill, the British Prime Minister, and I communicate direct with him. In addition to that I receive, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, numbers of communications which come from the British government through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on all matters pertaining to the war. The result is that every day, before the day ends, my colleagues and I have here in Ottawa as complete a record as it is possible to obtain with respect to matters relating to the war up to that moment. There may be some matters that have to stand over for a day or two; but so far as procedure has gone up to the present, and speaking generally, we have been amazed at the rapidity with which the government has been kept informed on most matters. It may be that my hon. friend is not aware of how complete the whole system of consultation and conference is, but I trust that what I have said will answer any doubts there may be in his mind on that question.

My hon. friend has spoken about the manpower problem in Canada. Well, we have a man-power problem. Every country that is at war, indeed, for that matter even if it is not at war, has that problem to a greater or less degree. There certainly is no more difficult situation to handle than that of taking people out of occupations in which they have spent their lives and putting them into entirely different occupations. There is nothing more disrupting to good feeling than to be obliged, as the government is, in a time of war, to make restrictions which will prevent people from carrying on the pursuits in which they have been engaged since their earliest days and to which they had hoped to devote their lives, and to tell them to do something else, to go somewhere else. There is nothing more distasteful than suddenly to be obliged to have an officer of the government go into the homes of citizens of our country and tell them that it is a part of government policy that not merely the men but in some cases the women as well in those homes must leave them in order to help in the war industries of the country or to take part in some other form of war service. This is the most difficult problem with which any country can be faced at any time, and the amazing thing to me is that we have been able to work out matters as smoothly as we have.

At the last session of parliament I gave the house a statement of what I thought the man-power requirements for this year would be. Hon. members will see in Hansard of March 24, 1942, my statement of the estimate of what would be required to fulfil man-power

needs for the fiscal year 1942-43. These were the figures given: war industry, 100,000; navy, 13,000; army, 90,000-100,000; air force, 70,00080,000, making a total of from 173,000 to 193,000 for the armed forces all told. I think these figures were also given, in part at least, by my colleague the Minister of National Defence.

Various revisions have been made from time to time in the light of changing needs of the war. The army estimates were raised because of the increased home defence programme. What are the actual achievements? I have given the estimates. The actual achievements for 1942-that is, for the calendar year-were these: For war industries, instead of merely

the number estimated being provided, that is 100,000, there were over 300,000 added. That was the number of persons who entered war industries. As regards the armed forces, the number was over 200,000, a figure above that which in the earlier stage had been estimated with regard to the three forces. In other words, the achievements in the mobilization of man-power greatly exceeded the earlier estimate in 1942.

There may be a controversy with regard to methods, if you will. AH methods, particularly new methods, when they are adopted, are difficult. But what matters most is the result, and I have given the house the results of such methods as have been employed in t'he past year.

I made perfectly clear to the house in what I said that it would not be an easy matter to carry out the necessary measures. Speaking on January 26, 1942, I said:

The administrative machinery required to carry out the proposed measures equitably and efficiently will necessarily be intricate and complicated. The capacities of men and women cannot be weighed and measured and graded with the same certainty as the qualities of wheat, or cement or steel can be determined. To perform the complicated task of selection with success will demand both time and skill.

I also said:

Certainly no government is wise enough to decide the appropriate task for every individual in the nation. And, even if governments were all-knowing, the war would not wait while this stupendous job was being performed. What the government can do, and what we propose to undertake to do, is to meet the urgent needs by the best means we can devise.

And that I say we have carried out in the way I have indicated.

Let me repeat that the government does not claim that it has been able to do everything perfectly or even as rapidly as might 'be desired. Perhaps I might direct the attention of hon. members to this fact, that there has not been a single phase of the war effort-I

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

make no exception-in connection with which this government has not been charged from the very start that we were not going fast enough, that we were not getting the results that should' be obtained. The very first year it was, Why didn't we have more troops overseas; why didn't we have more clothing; why didn't we have more equipment? My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) was continually taunted with not *getting planes fast enough, not getting tanks, that we had no tanks, and the like. So it has been all the way. Little if any account has been taken of the fact that unless there had been very careful planning at the outset, all the rest might likely have been a muddle. I claim for the present administration that we have planned carefully from the start. We have resisted the pressure to proceed at a rate which would sacrifice quality for quantity. As a result, what we have done stands in good stead for this country and for the united nations to-day.

This afternoon the leader of the opposition ended his address with a peroration-it was not his own, it was one of Mr. Churchill's; it was all the better for that. It was one with which we are all familiar, telling how the British people were prepared to fight in the streets, to fight on the beaches, to fight on the hillsides, prepared to fight everywhere, and my hon. friend said, Now I present that as a challenge to hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to their war effort. Well, I am going to answer that challenge to-night. I answer it by asking him to survey what is taking place to-day in different parts of the world as a result of the services of the armed forces of this country. I ask him to stop and think of the position of this country on the day this parliament met and decided that we would enter the war. At that time Canada was not prepared for war any more than were any of the other countries now fighting the axis. We started practically from scratch, but today we have one of the finest navies in the world. We have two army corps overseas, the best trained and best equipped of any corresponding number of men in the world. We have an air training plan in this country which has turned out pilots and air crews that will be found over every theatre of war in the world, an agency of war as great as any other to be found in any country to-day. And we have in proportion to our population greater war production than can be shown relatively I believe for almost any other country. Not only have we armed forces engaged in active combat to-day in all parts of the world, but we have in addition been assisting in arming and supplying the other united nations that have been taking a great part in the war. {Mr. Mackenzie King.]

In answer to my hon. friend's challenge, let him ask himself what Canada has done for Russia, for China, for many of the united nations that are to-day fighting in this war. In the answer to that question he will find the answer to the question whether we have been doing our part in the war.

My hon. friend has asked for facts and figures. I shall make a brief statement. I had thought that I would leave this to another occasion, but as he has asked me to give something concrete I shall at once give a brief statement of the growth of the armed forces in the past year, 1942.

Here may I pause to join with my hon. friend in the tribute he paid to our heroic men at Dieppe. Nothing has happened in the past year which has touched so deeply the hearts of the Canadian people as the spirit shown by the forces who were engaged in that combined reconnaissance at Dieppe in the middle of the year. Their resource and ingenuity, their skill, their bravery, the valour and heroism they show7ed; all this and much else has helped to make the name of Dieppe stand out in the history of our country as one of the memorable names blazoned on the banner of war honours of our land. And may I say that I do not think full justice has ever been done in this house to the memory of the men who fought at Hong Kong and sacrificed their lives, or their health there in. an equally brave endeavour to preserve the safety of their country and the freedom of the world. In our thoughts at this time above all are those who have made the supreme sacrifice, the families that have lost their loved ones, those who to-day are suffering as prisoners of war in different enemy countries, those who have been wounded, those who are away from their homes; all of them are present in our thoughts at this time, and I hope word will go out to the living among their number that the House of Commons, whatever differences it may have in its parties, is one in its thought for them and its determination to see that everything that is in its power to do will be done to help and support them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to come to facts and figures. A year ago the navy comprised over three hundred and fifty ships and over twenty-seven thousand men. At the beginning of the present year there were more than five hundred ships and the personnel had almost doubled, the number exceeding fifty-two thousand.

At the beginning of 1942 the active army included some 260,000 volunteers and an additional 20,000 men called up under the Mobilization Act. At the beginning of this year the number of volunteers had risen to about 360,000 and the number of men serving compulsorily

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

to about 55,000. A considerable portion of the men called up during the year had volunteered for general service.

In the air force the number of men rose in 1942 from about 100,000 to about 150,000.

In addition to the armed forces, about 38,000 Canadian merchant seamen are serving on vessels of Canadian or foreign registry. Some 400 men are serving in Britain in the corps of Canadian civilian firefighters.

Just a word about the war effort of these forces. The Canadian navy has three tasks. It shares with the army and the air force in guarding Canada's shores. It shares with the British and United States navies in protecting merchant shipping on the Atlantic. It cooperates with the sea forces of the united nations. In engagements with the enemy, officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy have borne themselves gallantly. Several enemy submarines have been sunk by Canadian naval forces. I pause to ask hon. members if their pride and the pride of the country has not been stirred by the announcement made within the last few days that a Canadian corvette bearing the name Ville de Quebec had torpedoed a German submarine and sunk her in the waters of the Mediterranean, and the report which has been published to-day that another Canadian corvette bearing the name Port Arthur has sunk an Italian submarine. And, Mr. Speaker, while these announcements are not made from day to day, it is a fact that something like eight or nine or ten of our corvettes or other ships have succeeded in sinking U-boats during the course of this war.

That is only one phase, but I say it is something of which Canada may well be proud. I ask the members of my party and others in this house who come from the province of Quebec if they are not proud that a corvette manned by Canadians and bearing the name of the city of Quebec, the capital of old Canada, was able to sink an enemy ship in the waters of the Mediterranean. I see my hon. friends at the far end opposite, to whom I am addressing my remarks particularly, smiling. May I make this statement; may I say to them that proud as I have often been of this House of Commons, I was never prouder than when I heard two of our members ini uniform speak as they did about the defence of Canada being accomplished through the defence of freedom in all parts of the world; coming here to this house while on active service to proclaim the larger vision, the only vision that counts for aught in a war like this, that the safety of Canada is bound up with the safety of freedom throughout the world. Yet at this critical time, of all times,

hon, gentlemen in the far corner opposite find it necessary to separate themselves from colleagues in their province in order to support an isolationist view with regard to the war effort of Canada! Their action does credit neither to themselves, nor to their province or to our country.

To continue with respect to Canada's war effort. A programme of expansion in the navy has been followed continuously since the outbreak of war. Only a part of Canadian shipbuilding capacity is devoted to the needs of the Royal Canadian Navy. The total shipbuilding capacity is divided between the construction of cargo ships and naval craft. A considerable number of ships of both kinds are constructed for Britain, the United States and others of our allies. At the same time British shipyards, as well as our own, are building ships for the Canadian navy. A considerable increase in the number of ships, including several destroyers, is anticipated in the present year. The enlistment and training of naval personnel is keeping pace with the increase in the number of ships.

The Canadian army in Britain has continued to guard that island citadel and to prepare for offensive action against the enerhy. In the combined operations at Dieppe the valour and heroism of our troops as I have said has filled our country with pride. May I pause here to say that I sometimes think we do not sufficiently estimate the part which our troops in Britain have played from the beginning of this war. We have, for example, been attaching considerable importance to the visit which Mr. Churchill had with the President of the United States in North Africa. At different times we have been stirred by similar visits to Washington. How has it been made possible for Mr. Churchill to travel as he has to different parts of the world in this time of war? If you ask the people of Britain they will tell you to-day that this is due in very large part to the sense of security which Mr. Churchill and the government of Britain feel because of the presence of the Canadian forces, along with the British forces, in the British isles. Our men have not merely been prepared at any moment to meet the assault of the enemy should he seek to attack Britain. They have been equally prepared to cross the channel and be the spearhead of an attack upon the German forces there. Moreover, the effect of the presence of the Canadians in the British isles has been to keep locked up in the mainland opposite, in occupied France, divisions of German troops which would have been available for service in Africa or elsewhere.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

In addition to hard training and ordinary duties of life in the field army, the army in Britain has done many other things. I should like to describe some of those activities in the words of General MeNaughton. I intend to do so in a few moments because I wish also to have the challenge which my hon. friend has thrown out answered in the words of General MeNaughton himself.

In connection with the army overseas, the Canadian active army of two army corps announced a year ago has completed its formations in all its major components. Ancillary-units are month by month proceeding overseas. Thousands are in training as reinforcements wherever required. The programme of army expansion in Canada, announced on March 25 of last year, is being carried out. The 6th and 7th divisions and the brigade groups of the 8th division are mobilized. There are in addition troops on garrison duty on our coasts and in our vulnerable areas. In addition to the troops in Newfoundland, Labrador and the West Indies, the Canadian army is cooperating in the defence of Alaska. Behind -the active army are -the tens of thousands of citizens who are effectively devoting their time and energy to the important work of the reserve army. Then also there has been the important voluntary work carried on by many tens of thousands of our citizens in air raid precautions and civil defence.

The Royal Canadian Air Force continues to develop its threefold activities: air training, territorial and coastal defence, and active combat against -the enemy in all parts of the world. During -the year the agreement which set up the original British commonwealth air training plan was renewed and extended. Royal Air Force training in Canada has been coordinated with the commonwealth plan in a greatly enlarged combined training organization. The expansion of the home war establishment, forecast a year ago and set out in greater detail on March 25 last, is being actively advanced. The growing submarine menace along our eastern coast and in the St. Lawrence, and the combined operations with the United States forces in Alaska have increased -the combat activities for the squadrons of the home war establishment. Canadian bombing squadrons of -the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Air Force have been engaged in steadily mounting numbers in operations over Germany and German-occupied Europe, Italy, North Africa and -the middle east, India, Ceylon and the southwest Pacific. A Canadian bomber group was formed in Great Britain in December last. During next year -the number of Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons will be increased to thirty-eight. The Royal Canadian Air Force is

undertaking increasing responsibilities for the maintenance, equipment and welfare of Canadian airmen serving in combat areas overseas. Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons serving overseas will be fully equipped and maintained by Canada. In addition, Canada is undertaking to provide the pay -and allowances of the Royal Canadian Air Force personnel serving in squadrons of the Royal Air Force.

I should like now to say a word with regard to war production. There is perhaps no more graphic way of indicating the progress of Canada's war production in the past year than to cite a few figures of production in 1942 as compared with 1-941. First, as -to shipbuilding: in 1941 Canadian shipyards built eighty-five corvettes and minesweepers, and in 1942 we built seventy-four, -a decrease of eleven. But in 1942 many of -the larger shipyards were devoted to the building of cargo ships. Over eighty cargo ships were built as compared with one in 1941. The output of military aircraft in 1941 was under 1,700. In 1942 i-t was almost 3,800. In 1941 Canada manufactured some 3,000 armoured fighting vehicles including tanks, universal carriers, scout cars and armoured cars; in 1942, well over 12,000. The ou tput of mechanical -transport numbered' less than 120,000 vehicles in 1941 but over 200,000 in 1942. The increase in the output of field guns, naval guns, machine guns and small arms -and ammunition of all kinds is even more spectacular. In money value Canada's war production in 1942 had increased some 159 per cent over 1941, from over $800,000,000 to over $2,100,000,000. The number of men and women employed in war industry at the close of 1941 was some 700,000. At the end of 1942 the number had risen to well over a million. These figures should be a source at once of pride and of encouragement to Canadian industry and to -the working men and women whose labours made possible such production.

Canada's war production was not confined to ships and aircraft, machines, weapons and ammunition. Primary production -was also greatly increased. Aluminum, nickel, copper and other base metals; steel, timber and- other essential war materials were produced in greater quantities. Canadian agriculture responded splendidly to the increased need for foodstuffs. Shipments to Britain were greater in all lines. Cheese increased from 112,000,000 pounds in 1941 to 125,000,000 pounds in 1942. Bacon increased from about 425,000,000 pounds to over 600,000,000 pounds, in this case over a slightly longer period; dried eggs, from some 15 million dozen to 38 million dozen. The programme for 1943 calls for 675 million pounds of bacon, 63 million dozen eggs and at least as much cheese as last year.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

Most of the food Canada exports is sent to Britain, but Canadian implements and munitions of war have found their way to all our fighting allies and have been used on almost every front. More than two-thirds of our total munitions output is supplied to other of the united nations. While our munitions programme has now reached full capacity, within the limits of available man-power and materials, we may expect the output for 1943 to exceed substantially that of 1942. In volume and quantity, it already compares favourably with that of any allied country.

' And, speaking about food supplies I would ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to recall a remark he made, to the effect that it was a reflection upon the government of this country, and one of which the farmers in particular should take full account, that we find to-day that butter and beef are being rationed in Canada. Why are butter and beef rationed in Canada?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

Beef is not yet rationed.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I thought my hon. friend said beef.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

He said beef might be.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

I said there was a hint

that there might be.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Then I beg my hon. friend's pardon. He did not say beef was rationed, though he thought there was a hint that it might be. Well, why is butter rationed at this time? The answer is-and I may say that if my hon. friend were helping the war effort of the country to the degree to which he professes he desires to help, he would tell the farmers of this country it is because Canada is providing the enormous supplies of food which she is sending to the people of Great Britain, from the supplies of foodstuffs of this country. We have made an agreement with Great Britain to supply her with foodstuffs. She has given us this opportunity in service above that of any other country. We had gained for the farmers that sure market, and I am certain there is no farmer in this country who, if he were told that it was to serve two purposes, namely to help sustain the armies and the people in Great Britain and give employment to those on his farm, would not very gladly have that extra supply go to Great Britain, even if we have to ration it here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say a word about the financial measures connected with the war effort.

Because of the success achieved in preventing inflation and maintaining the purchasing power

of the Canadian dollar, the real extent of Canada's war effort can be fairly accurately measured in financial terms.

In the calendar year, 1941, direct war expenditures amounted to more than $1,100,000,000, and an additional $900,000,000 was necessary to provide the Canadian dollars to meet the United Kingdom deficit. Canada's total war costs for 1941 therefore exceeded $2,000,000,000. In the calendar year 1942 the corresponding total was more than $3,600,000,000.

The splendid way in which the financial burden of war is being borne by the Canadian people is evidenced by the fact that in addition to over $2,000,000,000 collected in 1942 in taxes and compulsory savings, cash subscriptions for victory bonds and war savings certificates exceeded $1,900,000,000.

There is my reply to my hon. friend's challenge as to how Canada fights; how Canada is carrying on its war effort.

And referring to Mr. Churchill, I do not think he would mind my saying to the house what he said to me on different occasions when I have had conversation with him. He has said, "How does Canada manage to do what she does? It is beyond me to understand how she has been able to do what she has done and is doing in the war." That is Mr. Churchill's estimate of Canada's war effort. I add that, with no fear of contradiction whatsoever.

But now, lest it might be thought that what I am saying does not represent exactly the position of our armed forces and more particularly our armed forces overseas, I should like to read the following communication issued by General McNaughton, the commander of our army, as a greeting to his troops and to the people of Canada at the Christmas season and the beginning of the New Year. For some strange reason-and I cannot account for it-this very important message seems to have received very little publicity in our country, either over the radio or in the press.

I believe I heard only a paragraph of it over the radio one evening, but I searched in vaim through the press of the country to find any reproduction of the statement. I am not reflecting in any way. There are lots of things which go over the air and appear in the press which I may miss. However, I do think that this important statement should have its place in Hansard, and for that reason I place on Hansard 'this statement of the commander of the Canadian army overseas which will indicate whether or not in his opinion there has been any lack of energy or efficiency or sufficiency so far as Canada's war

. COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

effort is concerned in relation to the troops overseas. This is General MoNaughton's message:

This is the fourth Christmas which the vanguard of the Canadian army has spent in England, for it was on December 17, 1939, that the leading elements of the first division arrived at a northern port after an uneventful voyage across the Atlantic under the sure escort of the Royal Navy. At that time our numbers of trained soldiers and experienced officers were very few indeed and our equipment consisted of little more than the rifles we carried and the clothing we wore. But this caused little anxiety, for during our period of organization we were to rest under the shield of the British expeditionary force, and of the armies of our allies in France and all the facilities of the British army in the United Kingdom were available to help us in our training and development. Moreover, we had behind us Canada's magnificent young manhood and our great peace-time industry, both potentially very formidable and, we were confident, readily adaptable to the preparation and making of war. Our cause was just, our participation necessary, and there was certainty that the government and people of Canada would see the struggle through to a victorious conclusion.

In the months which followed, this confidence was amply justified, for in Canada preparations were pressed forward with energy and decision and soon there was a steady flow of men to us, limited only by the capacity of the ships we could obtain. And gradually at first, and then in rapidly rising tide, now approaching the flood, came our arms and vehicles and equipment of every sort and kind.

So to-day, our first few have become many tens of thousands and they now are firmly based on the vast arsenal which our country has become, we count ourselves most fortunate both in the quantity and, best of all, in the high quality of the supplies which Canada has sent to us.

In the three long years we have stood guard within the British isles there have been many periods of intense activity when battle against the enemy seemed imminent, the anxious time of Dunkerque when we were witness of the miracle of the salvation of the British expeditionary force, our expedition to Brest as a forlorn hope to support the last stand of our ally France, the Battle of Britain when we watched the air force in their glorious defence, ourselves half-armed and ill-equipped but ready to meet invasion should it come, Spitzbergen in the Arctic and Dieppe across the channel and other far-flung designs most carefully prepared at the behest of those who rule these matters with all the repeated meticulous precision and all the vast expenditure of time and energy that is required, only to end in nothing through some proper change of strategy as circumstances arose which called others, with alternative roles equally prepared, to carry their allotted task forward in satisfaction to fulfilment.

And always throughout, by day and night, in fair weather and in foul, unending training in all the varied aspects of modern war, continuous development to a settled plan, and as each day passed, the units and formations growing stronger and our men and officers more fit in body and in mind, and more adept with their weapons and skilled in leadership for the hard tasks which lay ahead.

[Mr. Mackenzie King.l

Meanwhile, and over and beyond the ordinary duties of life in the field army itself, there have been many things to do. Camps and roads and airfields to build; depots for stores and workshops to erect and operate; waste to be eliminated and salvage to be collected; help to give in the quest for key minerals needed for war production and tunnels to drive for power to aid in manufacture; forestry operations in Scotland to supply great quantities of timber when its import would have needed the use of precious shipping otherwise required; military schools and courses to organize and conduct; the central administration patiently evolved, by those entrusted with this task, to regulate our dealings with the civil power and with the great departments of state with whom our daily business has been adjusted in harmony. Likewise, and of very great importance, the widespread detailed systems, some army, some civilian, built up to secure the complicated task of caring for the individual in all his many wants and needs. To transport and house, to feed and clothe, to issue out the arms, to promote and pay, to minister to our spiritual requirements, medical and nursing services and hospitals and the Canadian Red Cross to look after the sick and other casualties, dental services, postal services, education in which we gratefully acknowledge the help so well given by our comrades of past wars, hospitality so generously given by the people of these isles, canteens and sports and recreation and welfare provided to us by the legion, the Salvation Army, the Y.M.C.A., the Knights of Columbus and all our many friends who have worked with them.

In all of these, devoted service has been given, not only to our own troops but also and on occasion to the civil population as well.

Those years in England have not been easy, nor do we seek their long continuance. The men and women with the Canadian army overseas are far from home and kith and kin to whom they would return, but there has been no wavering in the steady purpose which brought them here and they watch and wait for the proper time to strike with that quiet patience which bespeaks a high morale. When that time comes, be it soon or late, the army of Canada will go forward with reasoned confidence to discharge its duty to the cause we serve.

There is the answer to the challenge, if challenge there be, as to whether Canada's war effort in these past years has been worthy of our country. There is one clause in that statement of General McNaughton's which I wish to emphasize and draw attention to. General McNaughton points out that from the beginning they have been able to get all the troops that they could find ships to bring them in. May I say to this House of Commons that the only limiting factor today with respect either to troops or supplies for overseas is the limit of the ships available to transport them. There is the answer as to Canada's war effort. Does anyone dispute that?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

What

about the man-power question?

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am answering it; my hon. friend is getting an answer. I repeat what I said, that the only limiting factor on supplies or men going to Britain to-day is the ships available to take them. My hon. friend is seeking to raise a commotion in this country over the man-power difficulties which would undoubtedly be apparent in any movement of people here and there as I have described already, but is neglecting altogether what the commander in chief of the Canadian army says is the position to-day in Great Britain. I say that we owe a duty to the people of Canada, we owe a duty to the united nations to see that Canada's war effort is presented in the true light of its accomplishments and not in the light of some domestic struggle we may be having in regard to man-power.

Speaking of man-power, may I say that I was a bit surprised at my hon. friend, the new leader, this afternoon when it seemed to me he was seeking to embarrass the government in its war effort by directing a veiled attack at the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). My hon. friend said that there was a need for change in Canada's labour policy and rather sought to add what he could to the efforts that have been made to stir up added difficulties for the Minister of Labour. May I say, to begin with, that no member ever came into a government in Canada with higher encomiums from all sides than did the present Minister of Labour. These were pronounced by men in all parts of this dominion. If one will look at the press of this country, he will see what was said about the appointment of Mr. Mitchell as Minister of Labour and will find that I am perfectly within the mark when I say that there was but one note and that of praise from one end of Canada to the other. That note of praise was given in equal measure by persons of all classes. It was given by hon. gentlemen opposite, in sparing measure it is true, and it was given by the labour men of this country.

When I was seeking to obtain a minister who I believed would be the best minister that I could get to head the Department of Labour, I offered the portfolio of Minister of Labour to Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress. Mr. Moore told me at that time that he was ready to do anything in his power to assist the government, but he did not think his strength was such that he would be justified in taking on a portfolio in the administration. More than that, he reminded me of something I had , said to him years ago to the effect that at

the time of the last war Mr. Samuel Gompers in the United States had played an even larger role in the way of assistance to the government by remaining at the head of his organization than he would have been able to play had be been a member of the administration. Mr. Moore told me that he believed he could assist the government in a more effective way if he remained outside. But he said to me, "You cannot get a better man than Humphrey Mitchell." It was on Mr. Moore's recommendation and on what had been said by members of other labour organizations throughout this country, because of the regard in which Mr. Mitchell was held as a labour man and as a former labour member in this parliament that I asked him to accept the portfolio of Minister of Labour and believed that I was securing the best man that could be found in Canada for that position.

Why has there been an attack upon Mr. Mitchell such as has been made in different parts of the country? It has been due, above all else, to the simple fact that Mr. Mitchell has tried to uphold the government's policy of wage stabilization and price control. I want to put this very clearly to this parliament because it is a question we shall have to face through the whole of this session. The government will have to be supported in its wage stabilization and price control policy if we are to control inflation in this country. If that support is not forthcoming and we have to change that policy, then whoever is responsible for that change of policy will have to be responsible for the consequences if they lead to a complete breakdown in price control and to inflation in our country at this time of war.

This is a very difficult policy to maintain; nothing in the nature of restriction is easy in a time of war. I have been repeating that over and over again. There are restrictions that w7e shall all have to put up with, and if we are going to control prices there has also to be a stabilization of wages. I am not saying for one minute that any stabilization of wages which is unjust or unfair should be maintained. I would be the first to resist anything of the kind and demand that injustices should be remedied. But I do say that no class in the country has as much to lose through inflation as the working classes. I think they will be the first to admit it.

May I point out that this parliament has already approved that policy. Last session we did not have an attack upon our wage stabilization and price-ceiling policy. Members generally conceded that this country was

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

not only doing what was good for itself but was setting an example to other countries in dealing with a situation arising out of inflation such as Canada and other countries were faced with in the last war. As nearly as I could judge, this parliament seemed to be almost of one accord with respect to maintaining the price-ceiling policy. As I have said, you cannot maintain a price ceiling without having wage stabilization. Because the Minister of Labour has had to refuse certain demands that have been made by labour in the way of increases in order to maintain the price ceiling, because he has stood firm in support of the policy of the government, he has been constantly attacked and his position has been made more difficult than it otherwise would have been. If there is another explanation I would be glad to hear it, 'or perhaps, I should say, I would be sorry to hear it. I honestly believe that that is the explanation of the feeling which has arisen in certain quarters in an effort to bring about a change in the portfolio of Minister of Labour.

Speaking of ministers of the crown, may I say this, because we had a new theory of government, of which I am going to speak in a moment, pronounced by my hon. friend1 this afternoon-the theory of the occupational basis of government: when a minister of the crown is sworn in as a member of a cabinet he becomes the representative of the people as a whole, no matter what his occupation may have been theretofore. He does not represent a class; he represents the people of Canada, and his responsibility is a part of the responsibility of the cabinet as a whole. When Mr. Mitchell came into the cabinet he had to assume his share of responsibility for the policy of the government; and- if to-day he has to refuse certain demands that may be made upon him because of the policy of the government, the choice before him is to decide for himself, "Is it to be what in the end will be the greatest good for the greatest number by standing by a policy which for the moment makes me a bit unpopular?" or "Shall I resign from the ministry and thereby help to destroy a policy which will do more good to labour and others of my fellow men than could possibly be achieved in any other way?" Labour has no more right to think that the Minister of Labour represents labour only in the government than bankers or financiers have the right to think that the Minister of Finance is only their representative or than lawyers have to think that the Minister of Justice is exclusively 'their representative. When a minister of the crown takes the oath of office, by that is meant that he becomes one of a

. group which have a united policy and collectively are responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people. That is the meaning of responsible government; and I hope that any efforts which are being misdirected against the Minister of Labour on any score such as that he is not doing his full duty in supporting government policy will not be pursued further unless there are grounds which will substantially support them.

My hon. friend spoke this afternoon of the government's national social insurance policy of which special mention is made in the speech from the throne. I am glad to feel that members of all parties in this house are more or less in accord1 that the time has come in our country's affairs when we should be giving all the thought we possibly can to these great questions of social security. The chief objection which the leader of the opposition raised to the social security policy as outlined was not to the policy itself but to the government's method) of proceeding. He asked why in the first instance we should ask for a select committee of this House of Commons to study the whole question.

Well, there have been many reasons for that. One reason is that the question of social security, of any policy of social security which is to be a national policy for the whole of Canada, is a very large one. It is a question the proportions of which cannot be properly appreciated unless it is studied very carefully and with the aid of expert advice and information. For years to come the membership of this house will be concerned more with social and economic security than with any other question which will be to the fore, once the war is concluded. Anything that is done to-day in the way of making possible a further development on the lines of social security after the war will be of service to the war effort itself; because the men who are at the front are looking to us who are here to see that when they return they are not only given employment of a character befitting their worth, and ample opportunity to work, but that the conditions under which they will have to live hereafter will be different from those they have experienced! before.

The government has felt that this question, as I have said, can be appreciated in its full significance only after a very careful study made on the part of members of not only one party but of all parties in the house. It is of very great importance that it should not become a matter of party discussion any more than can possibly be helped. It has been suggested that we should have introduced a bill. Had we introduced a bill what would have

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

been the result? Immediately the whole question would have become one of party discussion. The bill would have been criticized for containing this and for not containing that. My hon. friends know very well how these matters develop in the House of Commons. But presenting the question in a broad way to a committee of this house affords ample opportunity for the study of all aspects of it. It is a matter which affects, in Canada, not only the dominion but the provinces; and, as hon. members well know, there are in these matters of social legislation financial difficulties, matters which relate to sources of revenue and possible changes in the sources of revenue; and constitutional difficulties, matters which relate to the powers of the provinces and the dominion respectively. All these matters lie at the root of efficient administration of any social security measure, and they are questions which can be studied by a committee of this house better than they can be discussed in the first instance on the floor of the house.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

At what stage of this national social insurance is it proposed to consult the provinces with respect to any dominion-provincial scheme?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Well, that is not for me to say. That is one of the things which I should think the committee would be in a better position to say than I would. The provinces will certainly have to be consulted; and that is one of the reasons I think that the matter ought to go before a committee of the house in the first instance. We shall then learn, in the light of the discussions in committee, what in their opinion is the order in which certain steps should be taken and the best time to take them.

May I say to my hon. friends that there is another reason why I feel that this matter should go first of all to a committee. None of us knows the particular trend that this war is going to take. But we do know that this year is going to be the most serious for the Canadian forces of any since the war commenced. What may be happening in April, May or June, sooner or later, no one in this house can say. I for one should be very sorry indeed if either between now and the months I have mentioned, or at that time, or later, or whenever the time may be, while this house is in session, that all our armed forces were engaged in mortal combat with the enemy it should be found that we were or had been spending most of our time discussing in this house whether or not certain aspects of social insurance should be passed immediately; or, worse than all, that we should be convening or having at the same time a conference between the provinces and ourselves on this matter. Everything this year will have to be done in the light of what developments the war takes; and the government, in planning its programme, has had that very much in mind. We want to expedite our programme, but the matters we wish to discuss first and foremost are those which are related immediately to the prosecution of the war. There is a very large financial programme to be considered, the. war appropriation bill, the programme with respect to allocation of supplies to the united nations, other policies which bear immediately on the war effort of our country as it is to-day and will have to be taken up before any other questions are begun to be discussed at length. But that does not prevent a committee holding its sittings on the same days, obtaining expert advice, and being in a position before the session is over to come back to this house with recommendations which will help to expedite the legislation which ought to be passed. That is one of the reasons why the matter has been referred to a committee.

I have gone on at greater length than I should have. I will close with just a reference to what seemed an extraordinary statement on the part of my hon. friend in the discussion this afternoon. In his veiled attack on the Minister of Labour-which was equally a veiled attack on the government itself-by mentioning the Minister of Labour, and also the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the one as having been associated with labour in the past, and the other with the farmers in the past, while the rest of the government were not either farmers or working men, my hon. friend put forward a new theory that, namely, of government on an occupational basis.

Let us go over the government as a whole, my hon. friend said; but he picked out just these two. The implication of what he was saying was that there are in the government a number of hon. members who belong to other callings or professions and that we ought here to have a government formed on a basis of occupation. No doubt we shall hear more of that from other members. Well, if that is to be the theory of government from now on, perhaps it would be well at once to point out certain fallacies with respect to it. My hon. friend spoke about himself as a great friend of labour and of the farmers. These were the two groups in the community with whom he had associated all his life. They were the ones to be considered first, and anyone who

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

did not rub shoulders with one or the other of them could not possibly be equal to the task of filling a position in the ministry as it ought to be filled.

I am afraid my hon. friend is not as widely read in social movements and reforms as he ought to be. Speaking of labour, as I think of some of the names that in the past have stood out as beacon lights in the path of reform there comes to my mind first of all the name of Lord Shaftesbury. Lord Shaftesbury has been upheld in all countries as one whose life was devoted to the welfare of the working classes. He was not himself a working man, and most extraordinary of all perhaps is the fact that he was a member of the House of Lords. That at the time was going about as far in the other direction as anyone could possibly go. But according to my hon. friend's doctrine, Lord Shaftesbury would not have made a good minister of labour because he was not a working man; nor would he have made a good minister of agriculture because he had not been brought up on a farm.

I might mention many other names, but I might refer to one name that stands out as perhaps few others in the history of the world, the name of the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln. He belonged to the same profession as my hon. friend. He was a lawyer. But he had a heart and soul for the well-being of the masses of the people, as great as that of any man who ever lived. Take the Prime Minister of Great Britain to-day. He is neither a farmer nor a working man, but will anyone say that Mr. Churchill is devoid of sympathy for the masses of the people, devoid of any knowledge of their interests, and that the sort of talents that Mr. Churchill possesses are not the talents very much needed by men, women and children on farms, in the workshop and everywhere else to-day?

Let me mention another name which my hon. friend very naturally is fond of citing, and which comes equally to the minds of all of us. What about the present President of the United States, Mr. Franklin D, Roosevelt? Mr. Roosevelt also belongs to the legal profession. He is a lawyer. Will anyone say that Mr. Roosevelt has not played his full part in the public life not only of his own country but of the world, and that he lacks sympathy for and understanding of the lot of those who work with their hands, those who work on the farm, in the forests, in the mines, on the railways, or in the workshops, or those who go down to the sea in ships? Did it, I wonder, occur to my hon. friend that he was reflecting on every leader his party has had *

with the exception of two? There have been eight Conservative Prime Ministers in Canada's history, and with the exception of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was a journalist, and Sir Charles Tupper, who was a doctor, all the rest have been lawyers. Did my hon. friend think, when he was speaking, of the friend who is sitting immediately to his left and who so generously provided him with the seat he occupies to-day? That hon. gentleman is also a lawyer. I imagine he has sympathy with labour and with the farmers. He has always told me he had, and I believe he has. I cannot imagine that he would be ruled out of a position in any government if his party ever came back into office.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

I hope my right hon. friend is not being unduly exercised over something which I said with respect to the inclusion of more farmers and labour men in the government. I was very careful, as my hon. friend1 knows, not to make any reflection on any other members of the government or on these two gentlemen. I simply made it clear that I thought it would strengthen the government to have more farmers and labour men among its number, and I wish to make that clear to the Prime Minister in case he is under some misapprehension.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am not under any misapprehension. When it comes to choosing men for government I believe the first essential is character, and that what above all else the people desire in their representatives in a government is heart and brains. These are the qualities which I believe count for most in public life. Nor should my hon. friend rule himself out of any future cabinet because he, too, is a lawyer. I think he does possess broad sympathies, but he should not seek to trade on them for political purposes.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

I think my right hon. friend, in all fairness to me, should withdraw that because I did not have any such design in mind. I was not trying to make political capital, and I think my right hon. friend has overdrawn the picture.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I can see I have touched a tender spot, and as my hon. friend has taken on new duties I certainly wish to assure him that I was not reflecting upon him. But he took great care to call attention to the fact that in order to merit the support of labour and of the farming community it was very desirable that one should belong to one or other of these classes.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell

May I say this in conclusion, as something which it might, perhaps, be well for all of us to keep in mind. A man is not known in his service for others in any more effective way than by his acts and deeds. His words may go a certain length, but the real test of a man is what he stands for in his community irrespective of the particular calling or profession to which he may belong. I share the view first expressed by my hon. friend. I should like to see in this parliament a larger number of men who have grown up in the ranks of labour and who have taken their part in labour's struggle to better its condition. I should like to see a larger number of farmers and a larger number of the representatives of other callings. That will come in time. What particularly I should like to see when this war is over is a larger number of men returned to this parliament who have served their country overseas and have fought for the preservation of freedom. They should be here to help shape the future in which their children will grow up. Above all, I should like to see in this parliament men of broad human sympathies, with hearts large enough to understand something of the pulse of the world to-day, and sympathies broad enough to feel for those who are less privileged or fortunate than themselves.

My hon. friend closed with a quotation from one of Mr. Churchill's speeches, and a very stirring quotation it was. As he spoke to-night about the different classes and as I thought of what counts for most in public life and service, there came to my mind lines which will be familiar to him also, and which I would ask the house to permit me to quote in conclusion. The little poem I should like to quote is by Leigh Hunt. It is entitled "Abou Ben Adhem." It helps to illustrate what I mean.

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!) Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace, And saw, within the moonlight in his room, Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,

An angel writing in a book of gold:- Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem hold, And to the presence in the room he said, "What writest thou?"-The vision rais'd its head,

And with a look made of all sweet accord, Answer'd, "The names of those who love the Lord."

"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so," Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,

But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee then, Write me as one that loves his fellow-men."

The angel wrote, and vanish'd. The next night It came again with a great wakening light, And show'd the names whom love of God had bless'd,

And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

February 1, 1943