February 16, 1943

THE ROYAL ASSENT

LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to

inform the house that I have received the following communication:

Government House, Ottawa,

February 16, 1943.

Sir.-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, Tuesday, February 16, at 5.65 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

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) moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint

444 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)

committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the standing committee on printing, viz., Messieurs Bertrand (Terrebonne), Bonnier, Bourget, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Chambers, Chevrier, Corman, Crete, d'Anjou, Denis, Dubois, Durocher, Edwards, Emmerson, Esling, Evans, Fauteux, Ferland, Fraser (Peterborough West), Furniss, Gillis, Goulet, Grant, Green, Healy, Hlynka, Hoblitzell, Hurtubise, Kuhl, Leader, MacDiarmid, MacKinnon (Kootenay East), MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria), McGregor, McNevin (Victoria, Ont.), Mills, Moore, Mulock, Nicholson, Purdy, Rheaume, Ross (St. Paul's), Sinclair, Sissons, Soper, Tripp, Tucker, Tustin, Weir, White, Whitman, Winkler and Wood, will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.

Topic:   PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

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) moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and Messieurs Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Cha-teauguay-Huntingdon), Bruce, Cardiff, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Castleden, Coldwell, Emmerson, Eudes, Factor, Farquhar, Fontaine, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gershaw, Goulet, Graham, Green, Hansell, Henderson, Howden, Hurtubise, Jaques, Jean, Lizotte, Macdonald (Halifax), Mackenzie (Neepawa), MaeKenzie (Lambton-Kent), Macmillan, Marier, Martin, Mayhew, Moore, Poirier, Pouliot, Purdy, Raymond, Reid, Rickard, Ross (St. Paul's), Thauvette, Warren, Winkler and Wood, a committee to assist his honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, . so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.

Topic:   LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY


The house resumed from Monday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.


NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate it gives me great pleasure to welcome back to this house the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). He is a very active minister and I predicted that something would happen to him if he did not take things easier, but I was not thinking of an accident of the kind

that did befall him. In January he came to visit the military units in my city. It was a cold day, although not quite as cold as it is to-day. He was reviewing the troops when the thermometer registered 21 degrees below zero with a thirty-mile gale. I went up to call on him and I prophesied a severe attack of pneumonia if he did not watch his step. We are glad indeed to see him back, restored to health and ready to take up the onerous duties he has to perform.

I desire to make some brief reference to the speech from the throne. It is rather colourless; there is nothing very startling in the government's programme. Nearly all the major proposals have been anticipated already by the general public and by the press. I am glad to know that we are being spared the indignity of another plebiscite and that sort of thing; so that I shall not devote much time to a discussion of the subject matters referred to in the speech, although some of them require elucidation.

Reference is made to a joint committee representative of Canada and the United States to coordinate the efforts of the two countries in agricultural production. I regretted that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did not touch on this important matter during the course of his remarks. I am not condemning him; I am simply saying that the house and the country should be told at the earliest possible moment just what these proposals are.

There is also the matter of the Canadian war supply board. In the resolution standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) reference is made to the establishment of a Canadian war supplies allocation board. I understand that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is to be the chairman of that board, and that it is to be made up of members of the cabinet. We shall await with considerable interest the statement of the minister in this regard. I assume he will make it at an early day, possibly on that resolution if not during this debate. The house should be told just what this proposal is and what is intended. It is a new departure, a departure that carries with it implications of great good in the common cause. More than that I shall not say at the moment, except that I shall await with interest the government's proposals.

Then there is the paragraph written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the seclusion of his own sanctum sanctorum. He utters this pious hope:

Every effort must be made to ensure, after the close of hostilities, the establishment in

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) .

useful and remunerative employment, of the men and women in our armed forces and in war industries.

I think we can all reecho that. But as to the ways and means of doing it we are left entirely in the dark. How is it to be accomplished? We are not told. May I remind the Prime Minister and the members of this house that in a magnificent address delivered within the last few days, to which I am sure nearly all of us listened, the President of the United States told his people and the world at large that private industry and private enterprise would provide the great bulk of employment after the war, to be supplemented by appropriate congressional legislation and action. He made bold to make that assertion, and so it will be in Canada, notwithstanding all the isms and all the talk that is going around in this and that circle as to the world that is to be. There is nothing that will take the place of private enterprise in our economic system.

I have not looked into the constitutional history of the development of what is known as the speech from the throne, but my memory indicates that it had a definite purpose in the days of long ago. To-day it is a truism to say that quite often the speech from the throne is used as an instrument to conceal rather than to reveal the government's intentions. I think that can be said with some degree of truth with respect to this speech from the throne. I have sometimes wished it were possible under our constitutional set-up that our speech from the throne could be patterned on the address which the President of the United States gives to his nation at the opening of a congressional session and in which he dilates upon the state of the union and gives a lead to the nation. I quite appreciate that with us this may not be possible, since we have not in Canada the same separation that there is between the legislative and executive functions in the United States. This is just a suggestion which arose in my own mind, because I have been convinced that the speech from the throne does not mean very much in Canada. I am certain that there is great opportunity for improvement.

I should like to turn for a moment to a consideration of the war position. As I read the speech, more than once, I felt that sufficient emphasis had not been placed upon the fact that this world-wide war has not yet been won. I believe the Prime Minister

during the course of his remarks in this debate endeavoured to bring us back to a sense of reality, but I am afraid, and I hope I will be pardoned for saying so, that the Canadian people do not listen very much

these days to the Prime Minister with respect to matters of that kind.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): That is

true notwithstanding the "ohs" that greet me now. Because of his vacillating policies the Canadian people are not impressed as they ought to be when the Prime Minister strikes a note of warning. Be that as it may, and it is a matter of opinion-

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): What is

the matter over there?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

What is the matter over there?

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): There is

nothing the matter over here. Let us have a little quiet.

In most of the speeches in this debate, if not all of them, I have sensed a lack of appreciation of the fact that the end of this devastating conflict is still far off. It would seem that some of us are more concerned with post-war conditions and political manoeuvring than we are with the vital task of winning this war-and that goes perhaps for all of us. For three long years Britain and her dominions were on the defensive. Then the great United States came into the conflict. In November last, and not until then, with the invasion of North Africa we began to see a gleam of light over the hill top-the end of the beginning, as Mr. Churchill so aptly put it. Since then in Russia, in the southern Pacific, in Africa and in other theatres of war our gallant forces have steadily gone forward. But I suggest to hon. gentlemen that the victory is still far ahead. One thing has emerged, and perhaps we can be in agreement on this, that as the allied nations have taken the offensive the danger of invasion of this continent is receding. But we have not yet won the battle of the Atlantic. The U-boat menace-and I want to be careful in what I say about this-is as great to-day as it was at any other time in the history of the war. The battle of Tunisia is not yet won; it is only beginning. I predict it will be a long and a hard battle, but it is a battle which must be won before there can be a successful opening of a second front in Europe. It may be months before Rommel is driven into the sea, as Mr. Roosevelt so graphically predicted the other night. Notwithstanding the magnificent, the marvellous progress of the Russian armies, the battle of Russia is not yet won. Our gallant Russian allies have not yet recovered all the territory that nazi Germany took from them in

446 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)

the summer of 1942. But I am happy, as I know we all are, to pay tribute to them for the magnificent victories which they have already won over German arms at Stalingrad and elsewhere, and to wish them godspeed on their way.

While it is all right to talk about the world that is to be after this conflict is over, and to begin now to plan to win the peace, I say with all the earnestness at my command: let us concentrate on winning the war; let us keep our eye on the ball; for winning the war is the first and foremost objective of this nation and of every other one of the allied nations. All other matters are in point of time and in substance relatively unimportant.

On this issue of the winning of the war the position of the party to which I have the honour to adhere is clear and unequivocal, and always has been, and please God always will be until the last gun is fired. I have proclaimed that objective many a time during the three sessions I had the honour of leading this party. From that objective I have never wavered and this party has never wavered. Recently at Winnipeg this party reaffirmed its position in the following words-I am going to put them on Hansard so that all who read may understand:

We pledge to the men and women in the services at home, abroad and at sea, support to the limit of our resources, to the end that they shall be adequately 'supplied with reinforcements, equipment and munitions of war in order that they can and shall be so employed in cooperation with our fighting allies that Canada shall make her due and honourable contribution to a common and complete victory.

There is nothing equivocal about that. And further:

Recognizing that the world struggle in which Canada is engaged requires a total war effort, we believe in compulsory national selective service, and that all those selected to serve in the armed forces should be available for service wherever required. We believe in the effective total utilization and proper allocation for war, by compulsion where necessary, of all the resources of Canada, including agriculture, industry, and finance, as well as man-power, and that our aim should be at all times to bring about so far as human means can achieve it, an equality in sacrifice.

We stand by that declaration, Mr. Speaker, and by it this party shall be judged. We believe in the principles enunciated in those two paragraphs, and we commend them to the people of Canada.

With many of the topics raised in this debate, I have not time to deal, but I cannot refrain from making a brief reference to the speech delivered the other evening by my old friend the member for Richelieu-Vereheres (Mr. Cardin). What I shall have

to say in this regard is said in all kindness and without intent to wound or to injure; I hope no word of mine will be constructed as having been so intended. I regret that the hon. gentleman is not in his place to-day.

First let me say that with many of the views which the hon. gentleman expressed, those, for example, relating to methods of government by order in council while parliament is in session, those relating to certain regimentations and forms of control, and especially those relating to the supremacy of parliament, I am in hearty accord. But I was much pained at what he said near the conclusion of his address, in what I believe was the main portion of his address, with respect to Canadian participation in this war. As I heard him I thought: This is isolationism in the nth degree, this is isolationism stark naked and unashamed, I wondered whether his views reflected those of his compatriots whom he represents in this House of Commons. If they do, then let us say good-bye to national unity in Canada; for it indicates a dangerous situation which must be faced by every one of us who loves Canada and desires to see it prosper, everyone who would like to see the two great races in this country go forward hand in hand to build up this country and have it do its, full duty. If the views which he expressed are the considered opinion of the people who sent him here, there is not much hope for this nation. The school of thought which he represents in that connection is as far apart as the poles from the school of thought to which I adhere in this great conflict. I shall not say more in that regard, except that I regret the attitude on the part of the hon. gentleman, and I regret it the more if he represents any very considerable body of public opinion in his province and among his compatriots.

But, on reflection, I am not really surprised. As a student of public affairs I know, and we all know, that since 1917, for more than twenty-five years, he under the leadership of my right hon. friend taught his people day in and day out that Canada, if ever called upon to fight in battle, should think and fight only for her own defence and for her own salvation. That, I submit, is an unworthy attitude.

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 take exception to my hon. friend's statement when he attributes to myself a point of view such as he has just described. It is not correct.

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

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Well, I am content to leave the matter to the judgment of history and the public.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)

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:

So am I.

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

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

All I

would add is that the Prime Minister has changed but my hon. friend the member for Riehelieu-Vercheres has not changed; and the chickens are coming home to roost.

I should like to refer briefly to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The minister made an able but, may I say, an ex parte defence of his administration in the agriculture department and the food situation in Canada. A calm reading of that speech will disclose many fallacies in his argument. I have only time to refer to one or two. On the question of shortages and surpluses I put this conundrum to the house after listening to the Minister of Agriculture; when is a surplus not a surplus? When is a shortage not a shortage?

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

Read the speech.

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

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I have

read the speech. I did the hon. gentleman the honour, or-I will put it this way-I did myself the honour of listening attentively to his speech; I read it as well, and as I say, it was an able but ex parte exposition of his position. We really have only one great surplus in this country, and that is of wheat and other grains. We have no large surplus of butter, but we have a sufficiency. It is apparent that, for reasons, there is a shortage of beef, but I suggest that if the price ceiling policy of the government were not so sacrosanct there would be an ample supply of beef in this country.

What is happening? The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Mills) intimated the other day that there was a black market in beef.

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

February 16, 1943