1946-03-19

AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM- SUBSIDIES ON FARM PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, and possibly also of"the Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to newspaper reports these two gentlemen visited Great Britain a short, time ago for the purpose of making contracts and perhaps agreements for Canadian food products. Will they, at as early a date as possible, acquaint the house with any contracts or agreements that, have been entered into, as well as the terms of those agreements and the prices to be obtained for the products?
lion. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) : The agreements that were under discussion while we were overseas are still being discussed by the British government and. this government. We have an understanding with the British government that no announcement shall be made here until forty-eight hours after the agreement is finally signed, the object being that they may have an opportunity of making an announcement to their house at the ' same time as it is made here. The exact date of the announcement will have to be left, therefore, until such time as the decision is finally made.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Will hon. gentlemen please speak louder? We cannot hear them at all.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I point out to the minister that seeding operations will soon begin and that, this is really the breeding season for live stock. I suggest that the announcement should be made at as early a date as possible.


Mr. GARDINER:: I expect it will be made before the end of the week, but I do not want to be too definite about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I should supplement the answer I gave a moment ago to the hon. member for Haldimand. The suggestion was made that ' before seeding takes place, farmers should know what the prices are to be for this season's production. I may say that an announcement was made a year ago last fall and it has a bearing on some of the discussions that have been taking place in the house. The contracts which covered this year's food products were on a two-year basis and were made in the fall and winter preceding last winter. There is no intention on the part of the government to havfe these lowered this year. The price for delivered bacon was established down to December 31, 1946, and on cheese and milk down to the spring of 1947. Those prices are still before the farmers, and they have some knowledge of what their floor returns at least will be. When I speak of "floor returns" I include both subsidies as well as prices.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that a large proportion of the grain produced this year will not be marketed for another year, and therefore a new contract will be needed.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to ask a supplementary question based on the minister's last statement. Does that mean no further farm subsidies will be taken off farm products during the coming year?


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be an adjustment of the returns that have been given to farmers, but that will be announced in due course. What I am saying is that the farmer was given assurance a year ago last fall that he would have a certain return for the year 1946. and I do not think anyone has in contemplation a downward revision of those returns. What I wanted to make definitely understood was that the farmer can, as he has been able to do ever since the war started, anticipate what his returns are going to be for the year that he is seeding the crop.


Mr. McCULLOLTGH (Assiniboia):: May I be permitted to ask an additional question in regard to barley'and the policy of the government in regard thereto? In the west we find that there is a definite move to cut down barley production. Will the minister make a statement as to the barley policy for this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have made so many statements on that point that I do not suppose it will do any harm to make another one. I have consistently and persistently stated that

Alaska Highway
barley acreage should be kept up. That is one of the reasons I haye been suggesting that wheat acreage should not be increased. I am sure that if all hon. members who represent constituencies in that part of Canada will take the same attitude there will not be any danger of barley acreage' being decreased this year.



VETERANS LAND ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I wisli to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) a question, notice of which I have already sent him. In view of the urgency of increasing agricultural production and the necessity of the early and satisfactory reestablishment of veterans on farms, would the minister give immediate consideration to allowing veterans not coming under the Veterans Land Act, but who wish to become bona fide farmers, the same priorities and discounts for farm machinery as those who now come under the Veterans Land Act?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that the rule forbids the making of any statement. His question should be brief and to the point.


Edward George McCullough: It is of urgent importance.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: On Friday I asked the Minister of National Defence a question; I wonder if he can answer it today.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I have just forgotten what the question was; I was not in my seat at the time.


William Irvine: It was whether the Alaska highway would be opened in the near future to public use.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no probability that the Alaska highway will be open to the general public in the near future. As my hon. friend knows, it is to be taken over from the United States army by the Canadian army on or about April 1. There are no facilities for servicing civilian motor cars and supplying them with gasoline, and so on; consequently it will not be possible for the Canadian army to undertake the responsibility' of permitting
ordinary civilian travel on the road in the immediate future. We shall have to look into it further after we have taken it over.


William Irvine: May I ask a supplementary question? Is there to be any official ceremony when the highway is taken over on April 1?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, there will be an appropriate ceremony. The date is not yet fixed, but it will be some time early in April. I am now discussing the matter with the chairman of the permanent joint defence board. Of necessity the ceremony will have to be on a modest scale because of the lack of suitable accommodation for civilians in the area.



MAPLE PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Is there any chance of the government easing the rationing of maple syrup and maple products in order that production may be increased?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I shall have to take the question as a notice. No notice of it was given and therefore I am unable to answer it now.



ALLOWANCE TO BEE-KEEPERS FOR HONEY PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary 'Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: On Friday hist the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blaekmore) asked whether the Minister of Finance would not consider advising the sugar administrator to increase immediately the allowance of sugar to Canadian beekeepers sufficiently to stimulate honey production in 1946.
'The answer is: The wartime prices and trade board is fully aware of the necessity of encouraging the production of honey in 1946. The following instructions have been issued by the sugar administrator:
For feeding in the winter of 1945-46 a maximum allowance of fifteen pounds per colony was permitted. For spring feeding an allowance of five pounds per package may be granted where necessary, but only to the extent of . packages imported to replace colonies destroyed. In the case of veterans wishing to import packages to reestablish a comparable apiary given up on enlistment, sufficient sugar may be granted to carry bees

The Address-Mr. Low
through to the honey flow. Ex-servicemen studying bee husbandly in vocational training classes may be permitted a maximum of twenty pounds of sugar should they desire to gain some practical experience through the operation of one or two hives. In addition, provincial apiarists * have been authorized, when in their opinion the circumstances might warrant, to grant sufficient sugar to prevent starvation of colonies. Applications for sugar in such cases should be made to the provincial apiarist of the province in which the bee-keeper resides.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General with regard to the food shortage in the United Kingdom. Will the Postmaster General facilitate and encourage the sending of parcels by Canadians to friends and relatives there by (a) reducing the postage to the same rate as was charged for parcels to members of the armed forces during the war; (b) speeding up the time taken in transit at the present time? Will he take the necessary steps to shorten the time for air mail letters to the United Kingdom? These letters frequently take from one to two weeks.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I suggest that this question be placed on the order paper. I shall have to give it some consideration before I can answer it.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister take some action toward having appointed as soon as possible suitable and competent Canadians to join with the officials sent by the United States and now in Japan to investigate on behalf of Canada Japanese fisheries and fish canning plants?


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: I thank the hon member for giving me notice of this question. I am pleased to inform him that steps have already been taken by the department, in consultation with the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Reconstruction, under which it is hoped that Canadians competent
[Mr. Mayhew.l
to observe and examine the Japanese fisheries will join United States' delegates for the fulfilment of this purpose. While arrangements have not yet been fully completed, it is hoped that they will be shortly.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fernand Viau for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, aqd the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): First I should like sincerely to join with the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken), the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the 'hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in expressing regret at the departure from Canada of the Earl of Athlone and Her Royal Highness the Princess Alice. I join with them also in congratulating the two right hon. gentlemen who so recently have been honoured in their appointment to the imperial privy council. I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau), the mover, and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters), the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, on their very fine efforts. Considering what they had to go on by way of material, Mr. Speaker, I should say both hon. members did an excellent job. The Liberal party is indeed fortunate to have the support of young men of their high qualities.
The speech from the throne seemed to reflect something of the gloom that must be in the minds of the leaders of the government. It certainly could not be called an optimistic document in any respect. In two or three passages the government made an obvious effort to congratulate itself by resorting to comparisons which, to say the least, were convulsive attempts at unfounded optimism; but I found little in the whole speech to indicate that in reality the government is aware of what things are absolutely essential if Canada is to break the bloody cycle of unemployment, want and war, and to make this country strong in peace. It takes more than pretty statements in a speech to set things right. The best evidence of honest meaning will not be found in the theories of their writers or in the speeches of their speakers, but rather in the practices of the government itself. For that reason the true test of effective government is to take a good straight look at the state of the realm, and that I propose to do for a very few minutes.

The Address-Mr. Low
It is now more than six months since the war ended. The speech from the throne points out the conditions of hunger, privation and suffering for millions which are following in the wake of those six tragic years of human experience. All our hearts, I am sure, bleed for the sufferers in the various countries throughout the world. The most pressing world need to-day seems to be for food for the people who face serious shortages or who indeed face conditions of actual famine. If the need is to be met; if human suffering is to be cut to a minimum, then Canada's duty seems quite clear. My group will join in any effort to see that the suffering is cut to the absolute minimum. The flood-gates of production must be opened wide. They should have been opened wide months ago. Now our reserves of foodstuffs are gone. Any one with any gumption at all could see the danger inherent in restricting production, as we did in connection with wheat some time ago simply because our existing storage facilities were taxed to the limit and were not sufficient to take care of more wheat. At that time a few of us said that in view of the potential world tragedy it would be a criminal act against humanity to curtail wheat production, as was being advocated. We suggested the construction of adequate storage facilities to handle all the wheat the Canadian farmers wanted to produce at that time. Needless to say we were looked upon as blithering idiots, and wheat production was restricted. Then the world surplus vanished overnight, and now men, women and children must die of hunger. I say the Liberal government must take its share of responsiblity for this tragic condition in the world.
I have been surprised that though each week the shortage of necessary commodities has been growing more acute, little has been done by the government, at least in the way of national organization to stop, the decline and increase the flow of wanted goods and services from the farm, the sea, the mine and factory to meet the tremendous demand that has developed both in Canada and in foreign markets. It is true that the other day the Prime Minister announced his nine-point programme for increasing production in order to meet the shortage of supplies; but in recent months I have noticed that luxury goods have been far easier to obtain than the plain, ordinary necessities of life. What does this indicate, Mr. Speaker, if not a woeful lack of experience and practical knowledge on the part of the legion of controllers and bureaucrats who have become the most serious handicap to productive industry in our country? What Canadians want, in common with the other peoples of the world, are the plain, ordinary necessities of life, not the luxuries; and it seems to me every thinking man can see that the situation is so serious that nothing but an all-out effort to increase the production of foodstuffs and ordinary civilian goods like rubber footwear, socks, shirts, nylons, underwear, bath tubs, houses, washing machines, automobiles and radios will even begin to prevent tragic results.
The whole' Canadian scene continues to be overshadowed by 'the spectre of inflation. Abundant production and the successful distribution of ordinary consumer goods is the only defence against inflation; yet the government persists in a policy of drifting along, afraid to take bold and effective action to remove the bottlenecks and the discouragements that have dulled incentive and checked productive capacity from one end of this country to the other. For instance, what has the government done about taxation? The system of punitive expropriation followed by this government has contributed more than anything else to the discouragement of productive enterprise. Endless and overlapping regulations, rulings and decisions continue to confuse and exasperate the people, and little is .being done by the managers of our financial affairs in this country to remedy the situation and free Canadian enterprise from this millstone which hangs about its neck.
Social Creditors everywhere, in common with all progressive and sound thinkers, urge the government to begin an immediate and progressive downward revision of taxation. Those taxes that bedevil and restrict production should be revised at once in order to provide incentive to industry to step up its output and restore confidence once more. And coincidentally with the increase in production of consumer goods the personal income tax schedules must be revamped to exempt from taxation the incomes of all Canadians up to 82,000 per year. We are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to organize a fight to see that this is done at the earliest possible moment, and we are simply serving notice of that fight. Nothing would do more to rejuvenate the workers and farmers of Canada and to induce an all-out productive effort than the lightening of the taxation burden upon them, especially the burden of income tax. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the appointment of a tax commission to investigate, simplify and revise our whole system of taxation is long overdue. . The people of Canada should unite in demanding these things. They can and must be done.
Another old man of the sea which has been dragging down industry and slowing our reconversion is the government's price policy. I
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Low
supported price fixing for the duration of the war. I supported the continuation of price control until the flow of consumer goods to the Canadian market should remove the danger of inflation. But when I gave this support I war fully aware of the necessity for some revisions in certain lines as we got along into the post-war period- It should have been perfectly obvious to the government that even before the war, producers of staples and ordinary commercial goods operated on a very narrow margin of profit. Further they should, know that in the last, two years production costs have gone up materially. With a much narrowed margin of profit, increased costs and restricted volume, producers certainly have been in a squeeze. Where was the incentive. therefore, to increase production to meet the demands of this time?' It has been a heart-breaking business for producers to get long overdue revisions of an obsolete price control structure. If our country is to meet the desperate needs of this most critical time, the government will have to revise quickly and sensibly its price policy. And, what- is just as important, it seems to me that the hordes of officials, large and small, will have to he paired down to a minimurih; for today it is almost- impossible to get quick action because of the many strata of bureaucrats through whose hands things have to go for final decision.
I do not advocate by any means even now the complete removal or abolition of the price controls, but I do say that in many cases there must be a fair revision of ceiling prices if we are to release the flood of ordinary commodities that the world needs in such a desperate hurry We are not so concerned about the luxury goods, on which there has always been a very large margin of profit, but we are concerned about ordinary consumer goods.
The government, it seems to me, must wake up and do something about this very important matter-and do it soon. If agriculture is successfully to respond to the call for increased food volume, then the farmers of Canada, and in particular of western Canada, will have to be assured of a much better supply of labour than they can see available at the present time.
What is the government doing about it? Is there coordinated effort among the departments of Labour, Agriculture and National Defence to speed up demobilization and rehabilitation of the men in the services', and to make many of them available for the work of food production? I have noted that our cities recently have become full of idle people, thousands of them drawing unemployment insurance.

His Excellency's speech mentioned the recently concluded agreement for a loan to Great Britain of SI ,250 million. I personally was glad to see that this credit had been made available to Great Britain. As a matter of fact a similar credit should have been arranged for Great Britain last fall. I am satisfied that if the various parts of the commonwealth had risen to the occasion last autumn, they collectively could have prevented the United States from bludgeoning Great Britain into submission to the nefarious Bretton Woods agreement.
But while I am pleased to see a huge new credit advanced, which will I feel stimulate trade between our two countries and materially contribute to employment in Canada, yet I think the loan should have been made to Great Britain interest free. Two per cent on the yearly balance outstanding will, in time, be found to clutter up and finally to make impossible the balancing of payments between Great Britain and Canada, especially if we persist in maintaining our senseless system of financing foreign trade.
While I am speaking about trade, may I offer one word of comment on that part of the speech from the throne which reads:
Employment -and income alike are bound up with the restoration -and expansion- of world -trade. To the productive employment of vast numbers of Canadians, export markets -a-re essential.	'	'
The government has steadily pursued -its efforts -to resit-ore fo-r-mer markets, to secure new markets, a-n-d generally -t-o expand peace-t-ime markets. In pursuit of this policy, export credits for which -additiona-l provision was made ait the last session, have been extended >to several of our wartime allies.
This, Mr. Speaker, seems to indicate no new approach whatever to the government's plan of foreign trade. It is essentially the same old approach. I see nothing in the speech from the throne of His Excellency, nor yet in what the government is doing, to assure me that they are determined to look after the home market-the very best market we have.
If foreign trade continues to be the main objective of the country's productive effort, then we are going to see the same old races for markets, the same old idea of favourable trade balances, followed by economic and military war. But if the emphasis is changed so that consumption, first at home and then abroad, becomes the objective of our production effort, then foreign trade in normal times will be concerned only with our real surpluses-that is, those over and above what the people of Canada want and can use.
When those surpluses are trade into other countries, Canada must be prepared to receive goods and services in payment for them. And

The Address-Mr. Low
if she is so prepared, then we must set about finding a way equitably to distribute those imports among all the people. Foreign trade must be a two-way street, if we are to have in future a warless world of free men. I should like to hear from some government speaker during this debate who will tell us what the government is doing about that.
Now, while it is on my mind let me suggest to the government that it bring forward its legislative programme for this session at the earliest possible day. This group is prepared to facilitate the business of the house, just as much as any party or any group in it. We will shorten debates; we will do everything we can to help out. But we do plead with the government to bring forward at the earliest possible moment its legislative programme, so that we may see what it is. There is absolutely no sense or reason in holding back important measures until the dying days of the session.
I do not want to see a repetition of the Bretton Woods fiasco of last December. If anything of the kind should occur, I will not give any understanding or undertaking that my twelve valiants, who have so well demonstrated what thorough study and unity can do, will not keep the house sitting all summer and fall, and all winter if necessary, to get right to the bottom of whatever schemes may be hatched up to take us off our guard.
I think, too, that the government must recognize that the all-too-frequent practice of talking out private members' resolutions is the negation of the true democratic principle. Democracy needs to be revitalized and strengthened in this country, rather than to be weakened and rendered anaemic by such practices as that of "talking out" in this assembly. Private members' days should mean something. They should be valuable to the country. If some resolution is brought forward and catches the support of a majority of hon. members, then the government ought to have the courage to allow it to come to a vote. By their example in doing so they would encourage true democratic practices throughout the whole country.
For a moment or two I should like to refer to the question which is currently uppermost in the minds of all our people-this whole business of espionage. I wish first to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his determination to bring this whole sordid matter of espionage into the full light of day. Had he not done so, I believe he might have been branded as the arch criminal of this age. I want to congratulate him upon the way he handled the situation 63260-5
from beginning to end. I have no criticism whatsoever of his action in that regard. I must say however that I was not at all surprised when the story -broke some weeks ago.
I have known something of communist activity in this coutnry; and the Social Credit organization-and I along with it-has repeatedly warned the people about what was going on. As a result of this warning we -have been called red-baiters, nazis and fascists by those who would seek to hide their own guilt by trying to smear the other fellow.
I join with the Prime Minister in expressing the fervent wish that Canada may be able to live at peace with all nations. There is nothing we want more than peaceful relations with all countries

and I am not picking out any particular one; I refer to them all. But I believe that good straight talk is sometimes necessary to clear the air. If I do a little straight talking this afternoon it is for the purpose of trying to -clear the air, and to put our finger upon some of the difficulties.
I think enough has already -been said about holding suspects in the case incommunicado. Serious as that is, especially from the point of view of personal freedom and human rights, there are other aspects -of the case which now require most earnest consideration and with which no one yet has dealt. I should -like to know how these men and women who are charged before the courts in this country got into their important positions. I should like to know too who appointed them. I should like to know who re-commended them, which is a very important thing. I should like to know too if there was any investigation of their background and their past before they were given such key responsibilities as they seem to have been given. Some person or persons in the government service must be responsible for putting these people where they- were and, furthermore, for retaining them there as long as they were retained. In this connection I should like to quote from a report furnished me by a former intelligence officer in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-and I say " former." It reads:
Prior to the first conference of the united nations at S-an Francisco last year, Ottawa authorities were fum-ish-ed with -information indicating that the communist party power would be -further expanded -as -a result of such conference. Also that -after the next federal election (which has since t-ake-n place) the communists would have more strength in the Canadian government than ever before, as it was known that they were -running under various colours other than their own. However, euoh information was obviously not -acted -upon, -and I would- say that the public is n-ow quite capable of judging whether communist parity power has increased.
[Stage Direction]
66	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Low
Surely it is quite obvious that the government service, if not its ranks, has been shot through and through with communist sympathizers and actual members of the communist party. The Liberal government stands charged to-day with gross negligence as a result of which vast spy rings appear to have grown up within our country.
Perhaps some member of the government will furnish the house with the reason why Ralph Wesley Clearwater, formerly a detective corporal in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was removed in May, 1945, from the position he held as non-commissioned officer in charge of the intelligence * section of the R.C.M.P. for the province of Saskatchewan. This officer furnished many reports to his superior officers in the force concerning the growth of communist and nazi espionage in Canada over the past several years. These reports were repeatedly ignored. This man was shifted from the intelligence section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to another branch, and in frustration he did resign from his position.
Why was not a most careful inquiry conducted to determine the loyalties of these suspects who are now before the courts, and many others not yet suspected? At least one of those at present scheduled for trial was repeatedly discharged from Research Enterprises Limited for unseemly conduct. Why was he immediately given a commission and a position of high trust in the navy? There seems to have been little difficulty for communists and others of very doubtful loyalties to secure highly important and key positions in the government services. Perhaps if we could find out how, we might also find out how so many of their ilk have secured key positions on university staffs throughout Canada where they find opportunity to undermine the faith of our young people in Canada in true democracy and in Christianity. It must have struck thousands of Canadian readers as peculiar that so many of the suspects already charged with serious offences were either on the staff of or were graduates of McGill university. That is not surprising to me when I think of some of the heads of that university, and of the fact that for some years back there has been definite information that the institution is a "red" hotbed.
. In the second interim report of the royal commission of inquiry is an arresting statement, namely:
. . . some witnesses holding strategic positions have made the significant statement under oath that they had a loyalty which took priority over the (loyalty owed by them to their own country, and for that reason they iaoted as they did.
fMr. Low !
This is getting to be an attitude widespread over Canada and is not by any means confined to the unfortunates who now find themselves in the toils of the law, or, I might say, even to government employees. Y ou find them in all ranks across this country. There must be a reason for the attitude, and the safety of our beloved country impels us to seek that cause. We must find it, and we must correct it mighty soon if we are to have a warless world of free men in future years.
I am convinced that we will find the cause largely in the flood of propaganda which was loosed shortly before: the outbreak of the war and which was designed to shake Canadians loose from their attachment to the crown, from their loyalty to Canada and from their will to remain as a part of the British commonwealth. It also was aimed at preparing Canadians to surrender their sovereignty to some kind of supranational government later to be set up. That propaganda has continued through the years since, with increasing volume and intensity. It has gone on over the radio, in the press, at public forums and through the distribution of thousands of tons of printed matter. It has done its work mighty well in some of our institutions of higher learning.
Some of the propaganda looked harmless, but its subtle effect was deadly. For example, in March, 1943, one B. K. Sandwell spoke to the Ottawa branch of the league of nations society. The Ottawa Citizen of April 1 of that year reported' Mr. Sandwell as saying:
A supranational authority with power to settle question® of immigration, natural! resources, treatment of minorities, repudiation of debts, finance, and other questions was predicted by B. K. Sand well of Toronto.
The report continues:
To bring about Canada's acceptance of the new "authority," however, Mr. Sandwell said it would he .necessary to bring all the people to a diminution of their loyalty to the crown by substituting a new loyalty to an "authority" wider than Canada, than the British commonwealth of .nation®, and the United States or ail the democracies together-
And again:
It is up to such organization® os the league to endeavour to develop among Canadian® the will to sacrifice a substantial part of their national rights for this mew "authority."
John Horne Blackmore: Government at the international level.


Mr. LOW:: I might point out that Mr. Sandi-well, as a reward for all he has done in that respect, is today one of the governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and still travels about Canada spreading supranational hysteria. Mr. Sandwell may have been sincere and honest in his aims, and the members of

The Address-Mr. Low
the league of nations society may really have believed that what he said was right and sound, but it is my conviction that the endeavours of such men and organizations over the years since, influenced as they undoubtedly were by the flood of propaganda which all but swept away faith-and reason, have been mainly responsible for the condition because of which people find within themselves a loyalty which takes priority over their loyalty to their own country.
The wind has been sown and now we are about to reap the whirlwind. Man cannot serve two masters. Either his loyalty will be to Canada or it must be to some other country. What- has the government across this floor done to counteract the ill effects of this terrible and subtle education of our people into becoming subjects of an ethereal ' supranational or international thing that no ordinary man can understand, leaving them easy marks for communist persuasion? What indeed? While they are examining unfortunate Fred Rose andi the others, let them take a look through the other end of the telescope. All the while that this supranational propaganda has been influencing large numbers of Canadian people as well as some members of the government, Russia has been very busy developing communism and making it bring alleged benefits to the Russian people. Those benefits have also been widely heralded to a fear-burdened Canadian citizenry labouring under a crippled and shackled capitalist system, but few if any of the disadvantages and heavy disabilities of communism have been publicized.
Let me say right here that I admire the Russian people for their great bravery. I admire them for their devotion to their "ism". They have not been victims of this supranational propaganda, and that is significant. But one thing is beginning to stand out very plainly. From now on capitalism and free enterprise, in fact, Christian democracy, must compete with communism on the basis of performance-not talk. Capitalism and free enterprise-that is, Christian democracy-must provide jobs and spread abundance to the limits of the people's ability to produce and their desire to consume; otherwise in due time it will be succeeded by communism. Ignorance, apathy, and ridicule can afford us no protection. The only certain bulwark for Canada is a superior economic and political life, if we are to preserve the freedom and security of the Canadian people.
Any system which exacts the price of unemployment, depressions, and wars is nothing to cheer about. But I for one am not prepared to swap our system of Christian democracy, 63260-5J
so-called free enterprise, for communism, because I believe that with the proper adjustments and the proper opportunity our system can work best for the Canadian people. Our big problem is to make those adjustments so that every Canadian can be assured of complete economic security with full personal freedom. I say to you, sir, that the application of the Social Credit principles to the system of capitalistic free enterprise will make that system yield so much greater results than communism can ever yield that I would have no fear at all about who would win the race with communism-none at all. That is why I am glad that Russia is trying out a new economic system, within its own borders. I hope they will keep it within their own country until they have proved it. It can save us in Canada the pain of pioneering a new idea that would prove to be inferior to our own. But this government must wake up, get the kinks out of our system, and make it yield us the benefits we want; otherwise a dissatisfied, disgruntled, propaganda-victimized people with loyalties weaned away from their country will kick the system overboard and adopt communism. There is no alternative for the future. It is Social Credit or communism -Christian democracy or slavery.
The government of Canada has a tremendous responsibility in these trying times. Whether our country becomes a strong, united land of abundance depends to a very large extent upon the quality of government leadership. Canada can be the greatest country in the world. But if she is to become the greatest country in the world the government must immediately undertake the reeducation of ' many thousands of people to a fervent loyalty to Canada; to a faith in their great land, a dynamic faith that will impel them to work as hard for Canada as Russians do for Russia. This can be accomplished only by getting the whole truth to the people, by making our system yield for all Canadians superior results, by strengthening the sinews of democracy and by revitalizing it, and by lending Canada's full cooperation as a completely sovereign state with other nations in a real effort to bring about a warless world of free men. God grant that we may meet the necessities of this grave time!


Mr. LEON JOSEPH RAYMOND (Wright) (Translation):: 
Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: That is perfectly true.


Léon-Joseph Raymond: 
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: As indicated by the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when he spoke last evening, we of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation are deeply concerned about conditions within Canada, particularly housing and unemployment. But as one who has just returned from several months overseas, during which time it was my privilege to be one of Canada's representatives at the meetings of the united nations organization held in London, I feel that my remarks in this debate should be in the nature of a report of my experiences. Indeed international affairs are of such importance that it is my desire to devote my entire time this afternoon to this subject.
It seems to me the time has come when, in the words of Prime Minister Attlee, Canada should very definitely make UNO the overriding factor in this country's foreign policy. This concept to me has certain definite meanings. First of all I suggest that we should realize clearly the true nature of the united nations organization. I have in mind what I regard as an inadequate if not false impression of UNO that has been gained because of the extensive publicity given to the conflicts which took place in London, particularly at the security council table. It is true that one of the principal organs of the united nations organization is the security council, and that one of the principal functions of this new

The Address-Mr. Knowles
world organization, is to prevent the outbreak of war through the work of that council. Accordingly its work is of great importance, and the security council deserves full publicity when it is in session. The point I should like to make, however, is that the work of the security council during the period we were in London really occupied only a minor portion of the total time we were there. Including the preparatory commission as well as the meeting of the general assembly, we were in session in London for a total of almost eleven weeks. The amount of time consumed by the security council was a relatively small portion of that total period. In other words, the greater part of our time over there was spent in dealing with matters other than the immediate question of peace and security. Those other matters were principally at the social and economic level.
It would take far more time than is at my disposal today-but I am hoping that otheT . members of the delegation may add to what I have to say on this point-to discuss even briefly all the subjects that were dealt with. For example, we spent considerable time on the food problem that faces the world today, and on the problems of agricultural production related thereto. We dealt with problems of labour and the relationship between the new world organization and organized labour. We dealt with relationships between UNO and the specialized agencies that have been in existence or have come into being in recent months: the food and agricultural organization; UNRRA; UNESCO; the ILO; PICAO, and other organizations of this nature. The purpose of all these discussions was selfevident; namely, that it was the desire of those who attended the UNO meetings in London to establish a basis for government at the international level. When I use that phrase I am conscious, as one who was there, of the fact that we have not as yet achieved world government. As another speaker in this debate has already suggested, that ideal may still be a considerable distance away. But what impressed me was the number of responsible leaders of governments from all parts of the world who made clear their realization that we had to move to an era of world government in which the nations of the world would not meet just in a sort of continuing peace conference, still jealously guarding their individual sovereignty, but would meet rather to plan the basic social and economic life of our world so as to build up conditions that would not only make war unnecessary but achieve a higher standard of living for the peoples of the world all over the 
globe. As a matter of fact, the thing that thrilled me most in my experiences at London was the extent to which that concept was present and was expressed. In public addresses I have referred to it as a groping toward the concept of world government, and in my view Canada, as a nation that ought to make UNO the overriding factor in its foreign policy, should be concerned about making the greatest possible contribution toward the creation of conditions which will make world government possible.
I emphasize that, Mr. Speaker. It is not enough just to seek the passing of a resolution to bring world government into being. It will not come in that way. We are going to get it only if we create conditions which will make it possible. There are various conditions which are necessary. I mention first of all the need for the removal of suspicion and fear among nations, and the replacing of that suspicion and fear with trust, good will and positive friendliness. Then I mention the achievement of economic policies within a country such as ours, and, indeed, within all countries, which find their expression and their fruition in cooperation among the nations rather than in competition with each other. Toward that end I see the various things that I feel we should be attacking in this country, our social and economic problems, not just as something we should deal with for our own good here in Canada but as the basis for our giving a stronger lead toward the creation of conditions that will make possible government at the international level for the good of all mankind.
It has been said that this is a difficult ideal to achieve and that we will have a hard time getting there, but I suggest that a much harder time is ahead for mankind if we do not achieve it. It has been my experience to see something of the destruction that occurred during the recent war, before the atomic age; and I am sure that others who have seen what I have seen, especially those who were there when the destruction took place, and anyone who uses his imagination at all, will agree that we simply have to make it an overriding concern that we achieve world conditions that will prevent the outbreak of another war, for another war there must not be.
I have said already that our first aim in strengthening UNO should be to realize its true nature, namely that it is the basis for world government and that what the nations of the world are aiming at is the possibility of planning together our whole social and economic life so that we may achieve a higher standard of living and thus not only prevent

The Address-Mr. Knowles
war but win positive human accord. In the second place, I would urge that Canada give the fullest possible support to the united nations, by positive and active participation in all the organs and specialized agencies of which we are a member. I cannot emphasize too strongly the significance of the social and economic factors in the new world we are trying to build. I have already mentioned a number of the specialized agencies. As a Canadian I am proud of the fact that we have been elected to the economic and social council. One cannot say too much about the importance and significance of our being on that council. I call upon Canada to give a strong lead in the economic and social council, and in the deliberations of the general assembly and its various committeesi of which, as time goes on, we shall be members.
This may involve increasing the size of the Department of External Affairs, so that more work can be done in this field,, and so- that the strongest advice and support can be given to our delegations at the many meetings that must be held year in and year out. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that here is one place where, surely, no member of parliament would object to an expenditure of money.
A few minutes ago I was trying to do a bit of rapid calculation to find out what it cost us last year to maintain what then remained of the league of nations. The figure I was able to get was about $300,000. To any one of us that amount of money might seem large, but in terms of what it cost Canada to finance the war I would point out that it is less than the cost of Canada's part in the last war for the duration of only one hour per year. That is all it cost us last year to maintain the league of nations. I suggest we can easily increase that amount of money, and find whatever amount is required' to build up our staff so as to be able, to give the best possible lead in our power within the united nations, and for the support of all its organs.
I urge not only that we press our support for UNO, by what we do at the meetings of the assembly and of the various organs, but that we realize that as a member of UNO we have made certain commitments. When one uses the word "commitments" in connection with UNO the first thought which comes to many minds is of our commitment to the security council in terms of military force, in the event of it becoming necessary to put down aggression. That is one of our commitments, but I urge hon. members to realize that it is only one of them, and that more significant are the commitments we have made by becoming members of an inter-63260-6
national organization, the aim of which is to improve the social and economic life of the people of the entire world. And having made that commitment-a moral one, if you wish to call it that, and that makes it all the stronger-we have an obligation to the world to do all we can within our own country to improve conditions of life here, and to achieve the highest possible standards-standards judged not by boastful comparisons with those of other countries, but by comparison with our own capacity.
Much has been said about the way other countries look to Canada. That is true. I was amazed at it. But it seems to me that we should respond to those eyes that are looking to us by giving the strongest possible lead in terms of an economy and social order that will provide the very best of living standards for the human beings within our borders.
There is one further thought I should like to express in connection with UNO-and here I address myself not only to the government, but to all members of parliament as individuals. I am sure all the delegates who were in London will support me when I say that in the last analysis the strength of UNO lies in the support given,to it by the people of the member countries. The opening words of the charter are indeed significant: "We, the peoples of the .united nations," are determined to do certain things. It is not an organization of governments; it is an organization of the peoples of the world.
So I sp ..ic to individual members of parlia-m-u, rather than to the government when I say that one of our jobs as public representatives is to do all we can to enlist interest in and support of the united nations organization from the people of this dominion. In this connection I should like to refer to the work of the United Nations Society in Canada, an organization which is seeking to do this sort of thing. I believe two or three dozen members of the house are members of that society, but I feel that all ought to be. All hon. members should be giving it all the help they can in its effort to enlist the support and the interest of the people of Canada in UNO.
I note from the estimates of last year that we made a contribution of $3,000 to the work of the League of Nations Society in Canada. Certainly that is a small amount, considering the importance of its work. However, I know the United Nations Society, as it is now called, would prefer to carry on independently, so that it may be perfectly free to express any views it may wish to at any time. But because of the difficulties of getting started
REVISED EDITIOiT
The Address-Mr. Knowles

in this new era I should hope that if the United Nations Society were to ask the government for a contribution-even a fairly good-sized one-to get started in its work, the request would receive sympathetic consideration. Surely an expenditure of this kind is as nothing when compared with what we have spent on the war. Surely its purpose is one which commends itself to all of us.
I turn now to another thought which impressed itself upon me most forcibly while I was in the United Kingdom. As hon. members know, it was my privilege to be there for more than three months. During that time I had an opportunity not only to learn something about the work of UNO, but also to make extensive contacts with members of parliament and of the government of that country. I had, too, an opportunity to rub shoulders with the English people themselves, and for a few delightful days with the people of Scotland.
May I say as forcibly as I can that although I feel keenly about Canadian citizenship and although I am one who insists that Canada's position within the British commonwealth should be one of clear independence, nevertheless I insist that as Canadians we should recognize the significant place in this era of human history now being filled by the British people and their government. A good deal has already been said in the debate, and I imagine more will be said, about the present conflict in the worldl among; various ideologies. Sometimes it is assumedi that the choice ahead is one between the ideology represented by the Soviet Union and that represented by the United States of America. But that is, not the complete picture. Despite the political differences hon. members may have with me and members of my group, I appeal to them to realize that the success of those things all of us hold most dear in our democratic way-and I mean by that an adherence to the principles of democracy and freedom, together with a determined effort to improve the lot of the common people-depends very largely upon the success of the experiment upon which the British people have embarked under the leadership of the government they have recently chosen. Having said this, it seems almost unnecessary for me to suggest that I will give wholehearted support to the loan to Great Britain. But I point out that we must go farther than that-and here again I address myself not only to the government but to hon. members generally. We can do a good deal in the way of moulding public opinion and public attitudes throughout Canada. I urge the strongest possible support for what the British people are doing in this reconstruc-

tion period. They are putting into their postwar task the same vigour and determination they displayed during the period of the war, and they deserve all the support and good will we can give them. Indeed, they are once again fighting our battle.
I was impressed by the calibre of the men who are in the government over there and by the calibre of the members of parliament. I was impressed, too, by the attitude of the British people. Life is grim in the United Kingdom, as others can bear witness to; yet the way in which the people are taking the continued austerity with which they are faced, and their determination to pull through to the achievement of a new Britain, convince those of us who have been there that Britain will yet give a real lead to the world in terms of a new era. I call for all-out support on the part of the Canadian people for what the British people are doing under the leadership of their new government. Our connection with them is one of which we can be very proud, and I believe that will be even more true in the years that lie ahead.
I should like to turrt to another subject which I feel is important in terms of Canadian foreign policy. I urge that Canada should take definite steps-before I am through I shall suggest some of the steps that I have in mind-looking toward the achievement of positive and friendly relations With the Soviet Union. I am fully conscious pf the atmosphere in which one must make such a proposal at the present time; yet all I am doing is going on from where the Prime Minister left off last night. The house will recall that at the end of his speech not only did he deplore any suggestion as to the severing of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union; he said that he himself was prepared and anxious to do everything he could to establish and maintain the friendliest possible relations with all peoples, and then he added, in particular with the peoples of the Soviet Union. I only wish the last part of the Prime Minister's speech could be publicized in the U.S.S.R.
As the house knows, it was my privilege a few short weeks ago to make a brief visit to Moscow. I went, of course, entirely on my own. I went because my experiences in London from the time the preparatory commission first convened in November strengthened m.v realization that understanding between the Soviet Union and the western world is one of the things most fundamentally needed in our era if we are to achieve peace and if we are to build the united nations into the effective instrument we want it to be. So I

The Address-Mr. Knowles
welcomed the opportunity that was mine to go to Moscow at the end of the meeting of the general assembly and I had a very interesting time.
I could make my appeal for understanding between the west and the Soviet Union on the basis of a human interest story about my own experiences in Moscow. If there were time to tell such a story, which there is not, I could indicate something of the experiences I had and something of the vigour of life I found there. If I had time to describe conditions as I saw them I would point out that it is a different world and that we cannot make comparisons between conditions there and conditions here, but that having in mind their past of only thirty years ago the fact is that they have made tremendous progress. I found what one would expect to find in any country, that is, things that were surprisingly good and some things that were disappointing. But the general picture as I have tried to give it, when speaking elsewhere with more time at my disposal, is that of a great group of human beings who have chosen a way different from ours, but a way to which they are thoroughly devoted, and on the basis of which they are going ahead. They are a group of people who have unlimited faith in their destiny and certainly a solidarity that cannot be questioned.
It is true that there are some things about the system in the Soviet Union, and they have some ways of doing things, that do not satisfy me. May I say very clearly that in our western world, in our democratic tradition, we have something that is priceless, something that we must guard with everything that we have. But the way to guard it is not to sing songs about it or wave flags or make speeches denouncing ojher ways; the way to guard it is to see to it that our democracy achieves in terms of social and economic conditions something that is better than other people are trying to achieve in their way. That is what counts, and will count as time goes on. I urge upon everyone the importance of realizing the significance and force of that concept.
I started out to say that I felt I could make an appeal for understanding of the Soviet Union and her people, and the building of a bridge between them and us, on the basis of a human interest story, but I prefer to do it on the basis of political and international realism I confess that the world seems a lot smaller to me now than it did a few months ago, having found it possible to get half way round it in a pretty short time. One realizes, perhaps more clearly than before, that the neighbour to the north of us is just about as close as is the neighbour to the south. We never even discuss whether we should be on friendly 63260-61
terms and have friendly relations with the United States of America; we take that for granted. It seems strange that we should have to discuss and advocate friendly relations with the Soviet Union.
I suggest that in a world which has become as small as ours-in a world where surely it is a basic consideration that war is unthinkable- we must find ways and means of living together on this planet whether or not we like the systems that other people may have chosen. Accordingly, so far as relations between the west and the Soviet Union are concerned there are three possibilities. One could take the position, if he were completely lacking in grey matter, that we cannot get along, and that sooner or later one must get rid of the other. Surely that position, at least in the atomic age, is unthinkable. The second position one might take would be to agree to get along together but to maintain a sort of armed -camp relationship, tolerating each other but not really establishing a friendship. That might survive for a time, but I have no faith in that kind of relationship having any chance of lasting in our present-day world. We do not talk of our relations with the United States on that basis. We take it as a matter of course that between the United States and Canada there must be positive friendship, and we do not even marvel at the fact that we have three or four thousand miles of frontier without a fortification. That situation is dictated by the proximity of the two countries, and I suggest that the proximity of Canada and the Soviet Union also dictates that an armed camp relationship is not good enough. We must go on and achieve positive, friendly relations if we are to build anything that is permanent and lasting.
I am trying to be realistic about this; therefore I should face up to the main argument that is sometimes posed seriously against the position I am taking. That main argument is that we may have been fooled by what has been taking place; that perhaps the Soviet Union is bent upon a policy of expansion step by step which in due course will gobble up the whole world, and the sooner we wake up to that fact the better. This is an argument I have heard expounded in this country, but I deplore it, not only because to me it is warmongering but because I think it ignores a basic economic fact. To put it in the simplest way I can, the basic fact is that whatever else we may think about the Soviet system, there is all the difference in the world between the economy of the Soviet Union and the economy that did exist in nazi Germany under Hitler. There is not the slightest ques-
The Address-Mr. Knowles

tion about that, and I do not like making the comparison even for the purpose of refuting it, but I mention it because this is argument that we sometimes hear. The economy of the nazis was one which required expansion, and in due course there was no alternative but for the world to be thrown into the catastrophe we have just come through. The Soviet Union is based on a totally different kind of economy, which does not require expansion, which in terms of the ideology to which the Soviet people adhere, eschews war. I am Convinced that they are neither bent on war nor will they be driven to it. The fact is that by the very economics of the situation they are a force for peace, if we can only realize it and only connect with that element of the situation.
One asks what is going on at the present time in areas immediately surrounding the Soviet Union. Surely one can understand their position, even if he deplores the conditions that have prompted some of the steps that have been taken. What you have there is an attempt to secure the frontiers of the Soviet Union, growing out of her fear of the western world. People here say that we are afraid of Russia. The opposite is equally true; they are genuinely afraid of us, and our task is somehow to cut across that vicious circle and get moving in the direction of friendship and understanding rather than to heighten these fears. To this purpose we must bend a supreme effort.
Last night the Prime Minister said he was convinced that the Russian people as a whole desired peace and friendly relation with Canada and all other countries. I want to underline that statement. I was in the Soviet Union at a time when it was tested. By a strange coincidence I was in Moscow when the Prime Minister issued his statement on February 15 concerning the violation of the Official Secrets Act by certain Canadians. I was still there when the Prime Minister's statement was published a few days later, in the Russian newspapers, and I was still there, a few days later still, when just at the end of my visit Pravda made its attack on the Prime Minister, and particularly on the press of this country, for its bitter anti-Soviet attack. Yet right in the midst of that I had the experience of talking with people whom I did not know, in the subway system and on the streets, and also the opportunity of talking with semi-official people at a reception held at the Canadian embassy the night before I left, and they raised the question now before this country. But the question they raised was not the so-called spy incident itself but

Soviet-Canadian relations in which they were deeply concerned, as I was too. When I tried to explain that on my return to Canada, some of the press who interviewed me found it difficult to understand that position. They thought that not only were the Russians evading the basic question, but that I, too, was evading it. But the same charge can now be laid against the Prime Minister, because last night in the latter part of his speech he was taking exactly the same position. He too declared his primary interest in friendly relations between our two countries. Yes, the so-called spy matter is one that must be brought to light and cleaned up; but when that is done, in fact even now while the process is going on, it seems to me that we must put.-the government, and all of us-just as much energy and planning into the effort to reestablish friendly relations with Russia as are being put into the unearthing and cleaning up of the situation now before us, and toward that end I wish to make a few suggestions. I make them not as all the suggestions that might be made, but to get across the idea of doing something definite, for that is what we now have to do. This thing has happened. I am not condoning any of the wrongs that may have been committed. Canadians I feel are unhappy about the state of Canadian-Soviet relations as a result of all that has happened, and they want something done about it. There are, indeed, some things that can be done to improve those relations, and I hope my suggestions will be given serious consideration.
The Prime Minister said last night that he had considered going to Moscow. I urge him to go. He may by chance be going over to Europe this summer for the peace conference, and Moscow is only a few hoifrs by air from Paris. The Canadian embassy will be glad to arrange for his coming, and I know from experience that they will see to it that he has an interesting time in Russia. I am sure that it is the kind of gesture that will help to reestablish friendly relations between the two countries. I urge him to be sure to go.
I suggest, too, that despite the difficulty there is in getting into the Soviet Union, we should consider sending missions there for the purpose of promoting good understanding. We could send a few members of parliament, together with trade unionists, farmers, and students-and a few business men, if you want to add them to the delegation. In return, we should invite the Russians to send similar missions here. We might perhaps have an exchange of students, writers, scientists, artists. The point is that relations between the two countries being what they are, it is up to us to make some special effort to improve them.

The Address-Mr. Cote (Matarpedia-Matane)
The road will be difficult. We may be rebuffed, just as Mr. Bevin was rebuffed by Stalin, who said he saw no difference between Bevin and Churchill after the effort that Mr. Bevin has made to establish friendship between Great Britain and the Soviet Union. No one would call Mr. Bevin an appeaser. That same Mr. Bevin knows how serious the situation is and yet having received a slap on one cheek he comes right back and repeats his offer of a fifty-year pact with the Soviet Union. Bevin knows better than I do the differences that have arisen between democratic socialism and soviet-communism. I take my stand with Mr. Bevin for democratic socialism. But I realize how important it is that all nations in UNO be in the organization on a friendly basis, with complete confidence and trust in each other, and we have a particular responsibility to do what we can to establish relations between us and Russia looking toward bringing them wholeheartedly into the family of nations that UNO must be.
There are other suggestions that might be made. One occurs to me now. I hold in my hand a copy' of a paper. I shall not attempt to read it. It is in the Russian language. Its name is Britanski Soyuznik, which translated into English, means British Ally. It is a paper published in Moscow by th; 'n">t,ish to help the Russians understand Britain and ujc British ways of living by interpreting them to the Soviet people. The last day I was in London I heard this paper discussed in the House of Commons, and one suggestion made there was that a tremendous increase in the circulation of this paper should be made in the Soviet Union. It so happens that on the back page of this issue there is a story about the Canadian frigate Swansea. My suggestion is that under the auspices of the Canadian information service we should establish a similar paper for circulation in Russia which might be called Kanadski Soyuznik, or in English, Canadian Ally. Better still, I would like to suggest Kanadski Droog, or Canadian Friend. Such a paper might well be started in Moscow. It would cost a little bit of money, but it would be only peanuts compared with the value of cementing friendship between the two countries. I urge this concentration on Soviet friendship, not because the Soviet Union is the only country in the world. No. I agree with all those who have said today, and at other times as well, that what we want is not just bilateral friendship but friendship among all the nations. Being a realist, however, I suggest that if the united nations organization is to succeed, world relations being what they are, the key to that success is Soviet-western understanding. But the
underlying purpose must be the strengthening of UNO. We must make it the kind of organization to which all nations and all peoples can give their loyalty, so that we can make it what we want it to be-an effective instrument for the achievement of peace, happiness and human accord.


Mr. A. P. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make what I hope will be some contribution to this debate, I begin by paying my respects to the mover and the seconder of the address. I do that for two reasons: First, tradition says we must and, second, my kindly feeling toward them and my admiration for them prompt me to pay my respects and to offer my compliments.
I came down on the train with the mover and his charming wife. He was then working on his speech. Of course I am not suggesting that I collaborated with him in what he said.
I noticed he followed tradition .to some extent. I was pleased to note the way he complimented his leader, and I was sure he was conscious of the fact that other people who had adopted that policy are now living in some comfort in what we call another place. It seems to me, however, he may be a little
82	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Smith (Calgary West)
late because, if rumour and certain statements we have read, are accurate, he has not acted soon enough.
Turning to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters), I find that he did not make that mistake. It was clear that he complemented everyone he thought might ever wear a red carnation. No, he left out no one, at all. However, I pay him a special compliment and it is this: I realize that in the House of Commons there are some great linguists, some dialectical giants; but his French was the only French I have understood since I came here.
But I am not going to stop there in my felicitations, because I noted that when, following the speech of my leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) addressed the house, he complimented two of our number who richly deserve the very fine distinction which has been granted them.
I say nothing about .the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) for two reasons: First, he is in my profession, and second, he might catch me out. But I am going to say something about the right hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) of which, I am quite sure, none of you Eastern people are aware. This might constitute an additional reason, why His Majesty saw fit so to honour him. Out in Western Canada the minister is known as a second Michael Angelo, the greatest painter of his time. By that I mean simply this, that one needs only to drive through Alberta these days in order to see that every farm building is beautifully painted with money the farmers took away from the Minister of Finance because they could charge it up against their tax. So that at least by volume, in any event, he is the greatest modern painter.
Then the Prime Minister, perhaps thinking that some other member of his flock had been slightly overlooked, took care to compliment the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). And in the blushing contest which followed the thing I observed most closely was that the Minister of Labour won, in a walk. There can be no doubt about it.
Speaking seriously for myself-and I believe I might speak in this respect for all new members in the house-I wish to compliment and thank all the senior members in all parties for the great kindnesses they have shown and the help they have given to those of us who for the first time came here last September.
I intend to mention only one feature of the speech from the throne, that having to do with veterans' housing. I hope to be helpful, 
and I am quite sure this may mean something to those in authority. We have been told all over Canada that we cannot get housing for veterans. There is in my home city of Calgary a radio station called CFAC which has a good idea. Those of us who come from there or who live near there know it is impossible to get accommodation, but this station has devoted fifteen minutes of its time during afternoons to interviewing veterans and their wives and families, if there are families, who are seeking accommodation. The offer made by the station was enthusiastically accepted by Mr. White, secretary of the rehabilitation council there. The result was that when the first programme period was completed the telephone started ringing and six offers of accommodation came in. That particular couple were placed as well as two other families. This continued from January 14 until February 15, during which time twenty-five veterans were interviewed, 101 replies were were received and ninety homeless veterans with their families were placed.
I think that record speaks for itself. It takes care of one of our major difficulties in finding housing accommodation for these people. Many people would be glad to open their homes or rent flats now available in their homes if they were sure of the type of people who would occupy them. I know ninety-nine per cent of our veterans are splendid people, but there is the odd bad apple in every barrel, particularly in Ontario apples, although this does not happen in British Columbia. The simple fact is that that excellent response was obtained in thirty days. Why? Because the people who had accommodation listened to the personal interviews that were carried on by the radio man named Jack Stewart, and they were able to get some idea of the type of people who were seeking accommodation. I am just giving that to the proper minister because it seems to me that if that practice were followed, especially in our larger cities, it might take care of a great deal of our veteran housing problem.
I turn now to a subject on which I intend to speak, not at length but only for a few minutes. I am referring to this espionage matter. I begin by giving you, sir, and the house my undertaking that my language will be temperate. I do not intend to accuse anyone of a violation of good faith or anything of that sort, nor will I say anything which might be interpreted, when coming from a humble private member, as having anything to do with international relations. But I do intend to criticize the course which has been adopted, and I trust that it will be

The Address-Mr. Smith (Calgary West)
based on at least some reason. The farthest that I intend to go is to say that I think a serious mistake may have been made.
Having said that, I wish to dispose at once of the criticism which may be made because I criticize the government's action. I say at once that I have no sympathy with people who break the Official Secrets Act. One small change in the circumstances and they would be traitors, they would be guilty of treason and liable to be hanged. If that circumstance were changed, in other words if this were an enemy country, they would richly deserve that most severe punishment of our law. With that I leave it.
But I do mention this: When I read this first in the paper and as I listened last evening to the explanation of the right hon. Prime Minister, I took a look at a book which I had read years ago. This was a book published in 1935,-written by Sinclair Lewis and called "It Can't Happen Here." You cannot get it because I have the library copy at the moment, but I recommend that book to hon. members as preferred reading because it illustrates how a subversive movement requires much less than a majority occasionally to operate a country.
What has happened? In this Dominion of Canada we have watched our nation grow. I do not think there are any here who remember when we were a colony, nor do I think there are any wrho remember when we became a dominion. My mathematics are not very good, but it seems to me that 1867 is quite a considerable time ago. Then we came along to the Statute of Westminster which, after all, did nothing more than declare an existing state of affairs. In other words, our growth has been healthy; it has been constitutional. Any change in status or growth in status at all times has been in conformity with the British .way and with the unanimous consent of the British government, of the British House of Commons and the House of Lords.
We find ourselves grown up, and to prove that we are really out of our swaddling clothes and short pants, that we are now mature as a nation, we have this spy scare. We used to read about this sort of thing in books that I remember that had to do with the mythical kingdom of Graustark. I can remember that those books were beautifully illustrated. There was always a princess who was going to be abused, but the right man came along at the right time and the kingdom of Graustark still went merrily on. It is too bad that one cannot deal with the matter which now confronts
us with a light touch but, as the Prime Minister so well said last evening, that is something which just cannot be done.
What has happened historically is this. On September 5 last, or early in September some time, the Prime Minister became apprised of some information in the hands of a man who was an employee of some sort in the Russian embassy here. The only point I make about that is this:	That information has been in
the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a period of over five months. Lest anyone think I have any doubts to the contrary, it was in the hands of one of the ablest police organization^ that this world, let alone this country, has ever known. They are an organization with plenty of money and plenty of brains. I have seen their laboratory in Regina and I know they have the finest instruments than one can imagine. I ran squarely up against it not long ago when a man made some photographs of paint that had come from here and there and elsewhere which startled me, and I thought I knew something about criminal investigation. I mention that in passing merely to show that this matter was in splendid hands, in able hands, in the hands of people who times without number had coped with serious crime in this country.
The first document which I mention is the first order in council which was issued I think early in October. The reason I mention that now, and I am going to come back to it, is that by that order in council government policy was set. Nothing that happened after altered the position which was then taken.
I now leave a direct discussion of what took place on this occasion and turn to a bit of history which I think all of us may very well remember. That has been the development in British countries of the position of an accused person before the law. Under magna charta it was provided that a man should have a fair trial and a speedy trial, and in all the developments in our law from that day to this the trend has been in the direction of throwing safeguards around accused persons whose liberty might be at stake. I know it is very easy to snipe at lawyers and say that we are archaic and bound by this and that and never learn anything new, but the common law has been and is constantly growing and has fairly well kept pace with new developments in this or in any other country. I refer to this one fact. Up to within the last eighteen months in any event we always said that if an accused person's statement were to be used against him-a statement made to a person in authority as a police officer

the onus was on
84	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Smith (Calgary'West)
the crown to show that that statement was voluntary, and among other considerations by the court in coming to that conclusion was whether or not warning had been given to the accused as to what his position was. In short, he was told that he was not obliged to say anything. He had nothing to hope in the way of favour and nothing to fear, and what he said might be used against him. That is as close to the short warning used by the mounted police as I can remember. But in the case of Rex v. Gach the Supreme Court of Canada in a judgment written by or concurred in by Mr. Justice Taschereau, now sitting on this commission, the court held that it was a rule of -law-not just one of the things to be considered but a rule of law

that no statement made by an accused person to a person in authority could be used against him without that warning having been given.
I mention that to show the trend there has been in our administration. I think Canada is the only country that has gone thus far in looking after the constitutional right and the interest of the person who is accused of a crime.
I now go a step farther and say this. Everything we have by way of administration is based' on the innocence of the individual until the crown proves him guilty. That has been the corner-stone of everything we have done. You may have a little different superstructure here or a little change there, but that basic fact has never changed from the time we administered criminal law in any British country since magna charta.
Let us compare that with what obtains in some other countries. I do not make this comparison in a disparaging way or to be critical of other countries, because other countries certainly have the full right of setting up their own method of handling the administration of criminal justice. Let us go to France and see what happens. We will say that a person is suspected, an information is laid, and he is arrested. The first thing, that happens to him there is that he is taken before what is known as an- examining magistrate, and that examination is in camera, and it is indeed a real examination. We saw repercussions of it in the recent trial of Mr. Laval, and I am quite sure that it was not edifying to those of us who are accustomed to our own system.
Go to the United States of America. Today in many states of that union there is not even a preliminary hearing. In fact, in famous oases reported in their press I have- seen it said that the crown had a star secret witness up its sleeve, and so on.

Our position has been so different. Here a man is entitled to a preliminary hearing. He is entitled without cost in all the provinces of Canada, if he has no money, to get a copy of everything that was said. In the event that the crown discovers witnesses between the preliminary hearing and the trial the accused is entitled to a full statement from the crown counsel of everything he may say. That has been the British way of proceeding, and with what result? If we take the number of persons charged with crime in this country or in Great Britain and compare it with the numbers in the other countries I have mentioned, and take the number of convictions under our generous treatment here-you may not logically justify some of it, I know-our convictions compare five to one as against those of one other country I have mentioned and tw'enty to one as against those of one great state in that union. I suggest that that must give us an idea of just how fine this method is which we have had in administering our criminal law.
Now I intend to discuss what took place in this case, and with respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you now to declare it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Leroy Smith: 
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Doctor May. He was arrested and charged in Bow Street the following morning. What does a man or woman want when he or she is arrested? Let us assume that they have not had my experience and have never been in gaol before. They go in there and are locked up by themselves. What do they want? The man first wants to see his wife, and then his
86	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Smith (Calgary West)
lawyer. The woman wants to see her husband, and then he tells her that she needs a lawyer just because she is there. I am sure that the Postmaster General will agree with me. that counsel is sought in ninety-nine cases out of every one hundred when they have never been in the toils of the law before. That is a natural human reaction. I am going to assume that these people reacted humanly and naturally; that they were the same as everybody else and sought assistance. They did not get it.
Then a royal commission was appointed. I am not going to say anything at all against this royal commission. I am fortunate in having the acquaintanceship of the two judges; I am fortunate in having the friendship of Mr. E. K. Williams of Winnipeg. Both of these judges and Mr. Williams are highly respected in Canada in matters of civil law, but I do not think anyone of the three ever had very much to do with criminal matters.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Mr. Fauteux?


Arthur Leroy Smith: That does not apply to Mr. Fauteux. I think I heard an hon. member mention his name. He is one of the ablest prosecutors in Canada; but I leave the word "prosecutor" to rest just where the Postmaster General called it to my attention. There is not a word of criticism in my mind about the motives or about the honesty of purpose of these men; yet I ask this simple question: why was it that two judges of the Supreme Court of Canada were chosen when the appeals may ultimately come before that court? Why not two judges away from the industrial section, because apparently all these questions mentioned in the report of the commissioners apply to the industrial section of Canada? Why not someone from out there? I am not saying for a moment that either Mr. Justice Taschereau or Mr. Justice Kellock would sit on this appeal. They certainly would not; they respect their profession and their position too much to do that, but why were judges taken from a court to which in the ultimate end of proceedings this matter might come for final adjudication?
Let no one think I am saying that when the Minister of Justice chose these fine gentlemen to carry on this work he had anything in his mind of a nature which was not of the best. The most that I have said or ever will say about this matter is that in my opinion a terrible mistake has been made.
We were told by the Prime Minister that these people were offered counsel. I have no doubt that they were. The commissioners say in their report that they did it in conformity

with sections 12 and 13 of the act respecting inquiries. I am going to read those sections because they are very short:
12.	The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this Act, 'and sballl allow any person-
The first is "may", the second is "shall".
-against whom 'any charge is mode in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
13.	No report shall be made against any person until reasonable notice shall have been- given to him of the charge of misconduct alleged *against him 'and he shall have been' tallowed full opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel1.
Something that I think we need to be told is this. I gathered!-and if I am wrong I hope I shall be immediately corrected-that once these men had given, evidence before this commission they were offered counsel. I gathered that from the Prime Minister's remarks and from reading reports of this commisison. If that be so, let us hark back to the main principle upon which justice has been administered. Here you have people already in gaol, in solitary confinement with a man at the door. We heard something about failure to attempt suicide and that sort of thing. The man at the door is the only person they ever saw. They have never been in gaol before. They are brought before this commission. There you have two supreme court judges whose names are well known, and who are no doubt known to them, eminent andi able counsel, clerks, secretaries, stenographers and all that sort of thing which go with royal commissions, and they were largely meant for us lawyers, generally speaking. But you have all this. These people come in singly, and what happens? They are examined under oath. If the newspaper report of the other day was correct they are sworn to secrecy as to what happened there. True, it is only a report in one of the Ottawa papers, and I do not know whether or not it is true, but that is what was said. What in the world is the good of offering people counsel after they have been in solitary confinement, after they have been examined by this commission?
You and I, Mr. Speaker, and all other hon. members know there is nothing so aimed to break down will power and voluntary action as solitary confinement and being rushed in before a tribunal of that kind. Under these circumstances no one suggests that these would be voluntary statements. To my mind, and I think the Postmaster General will agree with me, it is absolute nonsense. People need counsel before they are aiming for trouble, and before people are trying to cause them

The Address-Mr. Smith (Calgary West)
trouble. Those are the people who need the protection of people who by their training are expert in giving them advice in that way.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has already spoken for forty minutes.
Some hoh. MEMBERS: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope Your Honour will allow the hon. member to proceed; I am sure it is the wash of the house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sorry, sir, to have broken a rule and my promise that I would not speak for more than fifteen minutes, but time seems to get away from me. We did not commence our session until about five minutes after eight, sir, I would point out with the greatest of respect.
All I have to go on are the newspaper reports. I assure you, sir, and everyone in this House of Commons that I have not communicated with any of these accused nor have I communicated in any way, directly or indirectly, with counsel for any of the accused. So that I am speaking entirely from the record and from what I have read in the Ottawa newspapers only. I have not enough money to subscribe to the Globe and Mail, which I am told supports our side.
Just what has happened? We read in the newspapers that when Mrs. Woikin, the lady who came from Blaine Lake in Saskatchewan, appeared before the magistrate she was quite distracted and greatly disturbed, and endeavoured to plead guilty. I do not know Magistrate Strike but he must be an awfully good chap, because he refused to accept that plea. That was the physical and mental condition of this woman after having gone through experiences which I can perhaps better imagine than speak about. I am not going to use my imagination, but I have some idea of the things that run through the minds of people who are incarcerated in lonely silence.
We are told by the Prime Minister that they were waiting for Doctor May-I gather that it would be Doctor May-who was going to England1 in October to make a certain contact. Well, the mounted police are practical people; I have never known them to be naive. In September Gouzenko moves out with an armful of files and documents. This other man leaves Canada in October, and we waited to see if he would make a contact. Well, nobody is quite that dumb.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend is mistaken as to the time he left. I believe he had left earlier than that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I thought my right hon. friend said October.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe he
arrived in England on October 7.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you. My point is that a month passed by. Let us consider the Russian embassy, which was engineering this spy ring. Gouzenko is gone; all their documents are gone. Who would think that Doctor May would make his contact in London under such circumstances? No one is quite that dumb. That is a simple statement of the situation.
I have said a word already about the plea of the hon. member for Cartier and the plea of Doctor May. Now I continue. How regular this procedure is! Will not our minds go back to the first great war when hon. members will remember Mr. Von Papen ran the German embassy in the United States? This whole thing seems to fall into line with that sort of thing. I am almost through, sir, and will not trespass much longer on your generosity.
What does this all mean? In short, what is my complaint? Many years ago one of the greatest judges in English law said something that has never been disputed in any courthouse in the Dominion of Canada; that in the administration of justice it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted. Do not for a moment think I do not agree that we need a royal commission. I believe we need something to purge the government offices of this country of people like those who have been turned up in this particular business. I think it is also time that in employing civil servants scholastic attainments should not be given the greatest consideration in appointing people to positions of responsibility. I go farther in my effort to be fair and say that of course this sort of thing is entirely new in this country. But I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this house to imagine the normal procedure under the law. In September we had the information, and an excellent police force which worked over it for five months. Now what happens? It is not of very great importance if two or three persons should escape imprisonment. Of course we have the statement by the Prime Minister at page 51 of Hansard that the idea of the continuation was to see that no one should escape the net. That is not nearly so important as that we should maintain what has really made us what we are, in other words the rule of law in everything we do. What is law? Law is nothing more than the codification of honesty in business and good morals in social conduct;

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
and I do not see why we have not been able to proceed along that line in the good old way. Surely the. deputy ministers of the various departments in which these things have gone wrong are in a position to make a purge of their own departments. If we ever needed a house-cleaning we need it now. Surely it is not a matter of great importance that two or three individuals might escape punishment.
May I close by saying just this. It is true that we have had this commission. It is true that persons have been suspected of crime because, as the Prime Minister indicated, the documents pointed to them. It is true that they have been brought before the commission without warning, without protection, without an opportunity to see their families or to get legal advice. In six months, Mr. Speaker, this spy scare will be forgotten. Unfortunately our people are a bit too apathetic about matters of this kind. But I say to you, sir, that during your lifetime and mine the people of this country will always regret and will never live down the fact that we threw aside and abrogated the rights and liberties of our citizens. Indeed, sir, Canada now has seen black days.
Right Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I expected that we would hear some pretty strong criticism of what it was found necessary to do under the extraordinary conditions this government has had to face in connection with what I think I may describe, without violating any rule as to matters being sub judice, as a conspiracy for the establishment of a dangerous fifth column in this country. I would have been disappointed had that criticism not been made; because it is good, when extraordinary measures are taken, that they should be looked at very closely, and that those who venture to take them should feel that they have to respond to the tribunal of public opinion for those actions of which they have been the authors.
But I did not expect that it would take the line that has been indicated in the last few remarks of the hon. member who has just taken' his seat. For almost five years now I have occupied the office to which the leader of my party did me the honour to call me. It was my good fortune during the whole period of the war not to have been called upon to exercise any of the powers that had been conferred upon the incumbent of that office by the defence of Canada regulations.
Those regulations were quite drastic. Under them drastic action had been taken. But whether it be because drastic action had been taken or not, this country went through six years of war without any sabotage, and

without any incident that retarded the effect of the will of the large majority of the people to put forth a gallant and valiant effort in the struggle, for the maintenance of our institutions.
After I came into office it did happen that on two occasions internment orders had to be made. I suppose it was childish on my part, but I did take some satisfaction from the fact that, through no pre-arrangement, it so happened that I was not in Ottawa at the time those orders had to be made. And it was with great satisfaction that, when the war came to a close, I felt that the only orders I had been called upon to sign under those regulations were orders putting an end to the detentions that had been brought about under them.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat has said that he was speaking from the record; and it is quite natural that, in doing so, some discrepancies may creep into the facts as one states them. It is not the fact that the events narrated last night by the Prime Minister came to the knowledge of the Minister of Justice on that first day, when this Mr. Gouzenko tried to impart the information.
On the morning of September 6 he came to my secretary and asked for an interview. Being unknown to my secretary, as is the practice he was asked to state what his business was. When afterwards I was informed as to what his business was, I immediately said I could not receive an official from a friendly embassy bearing tales of the kind he had described to my secretary. And it was only after the police of the city of Ottawa requested the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that, in the ordinary course of the exercise of their duties, which includes the giving of assistance to local authorities when called upon, they were put in possession of some of these facts.
We did hear that among those facts was the narration of an arrangement made for a contact to take place in London on a certain date, at a certain hour, at a certain street comer, -where parties were to be recognized, with all the frills of an Oppenheim detective story-a newspaper under the left arm, or carried in one's pocket in a certain fashion, and by the exchange of greetings in terms which had been determined upon.
It did not seem to me probable, after this Mr. Gouzenko had disappeared, that this meeting would take place. Nevertheless, one of the gentlemen concerned did leave Canada on the date that the pre-arrangement indicated would be the date of his departure. I did not ttink much would come of it; but

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
on October 6 we were requested to be ready to take action here in Canada if an arrest were made in London on the following evening. It is under those conditions that the order in council printed in this white paper was made.
The meeting did not take place; and I felt a substantial relief from the fact that the provisions made in this order did not have to be carried into effect. I had other matters to attend to, I never saw that order again until after the order in council appointing the royal commission was made, and counsel for the commission came to me asking me to sign orders for the detention and interrogation of certain persons. We then had a quite lengthy discussion over it, and I told them that if the order were one that was going to be made, then it would not be in that form; that I did not think in peace time it was proper that any member of the executive should have the kind of powers the order expressed; that I thought no one should be detained, even for interrogation, without there being some form of intervention of the judicial authority; that we would act only as if that were the provision, and that there would have to be a recommendation from some organ of the judicial authority to make me feel that I should exercise those powers.
It went so far that I was finally asked if I was going to take the responsibility of refusing to exercise them. I felt that that responsibility would be a responsibility for the safety of the state, whilst the other would be merely a responsibility that might involve some political discredit, and that between the two I would choose to assume whatever political criticism might be directed against me for following the advice I got from counsel for the commission, acting on instructions from the commission.
I shall now refer to the statute from which my hon. friend read. I do not think there is anyone in this house who will disagree with anything the hon. member has said with respect to the prosecution of individuals. But does not the hon. gentleman realize that there is more than the prosecution of individuals involved in this investigation? Does not the hon. member realize that the Inquiries Act was put into the statutes precisely to take care of situations which concerned the safety or good administration of the state, whilst all provisions which deal with the prosecution or otherwise of individuals who have committed offences are in the criminal code? What was required here was not some form of prosecution of an individual; what was required when
it was determined by this magnificent body to which the hon. member has paid tribute, the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that this was something serious was a commission to determine the extent to which it had vitiated the administrative life of this free country. It is for that reason that the commission was appointed to inquire into the matter.
The hon. member has stated before the house that a serious mistake was made in the selection of the commissioners, in choosing two justices of the Supreme Court of Canada instead of taking some other justices from some other courts in Canada. Well, I am willing to submit our judgment about the selection of those commissioners to the country as against the judgment of the hon. member for Calgary West.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You can submit it in Calgary West at any time you want to.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: And in many other spots too.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It so happens that this is the spot it has to be submitted to at this time. We in this house represent no spot; we represent the whole of Canada. The Inquiries Act, which is chapter 99 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, was placed on the statute books by the parliament of Canada for the purposes which are described in the statute. It provides:
The governor in council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to fee made into land concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of laoy paoit of the public business thereof.
That is not the criminal code. That is a statute passed to enable the governor in council to have an investigation made under conditions which -will satisfy him, the parliament and the public of Canada that it is being proceeded with in a fair, judicial, careful and prudent manner. For the purpose of making that investigation the government of Canada was happy to follow the advice of the gentleman referred to by the hon. member, whom both he and I know well and than whom no one stands higher in his profession in this country. That gentleman at the present time is the president of the Canadian Bar Association. His first suggestion was that the commissioners be three members of the Supreme Court of Canada, and he afterwards modified that to the extent of recommending that two commissioners might be sufficient for the purposes of this commission. It was his opinion, an opinion which commended itself to His

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
Excellency's advisers, an opinion which I think will commend itself to this house, that it was proper to ask these two gentlemen who are now the commissioners to undertake that service, that onerous and disagreeable service to the public of Canada, which this royal commission has to perform.
They made an examination of the papers which had been handed over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by this man Gouzenko under the conditions which were described last evening by the right hon. the Prime Minister and which I will not repeat. They came to the conclusion that there was no doubt about the authenticity of those documents. Not many of them have yet been published and I cannot speak of those that have not been published. This investigation is proceeding in camera, but they came to the conclusion that taking these documents as authentic it was necessary for the purposes of a full and complete investigation that certain persons be detained for interrogation and they recommended that that be done.
I did not think at the time it was going to take as long as it is taking. It has really been a disappointment that it was necesasry to hold these persons so long before they could be interrogated and the commissioners make their final report. That is unfortunate, not as much for the persons who are detained, although they have my full sympathy, as for the public opinion of this country. It has made it appear that the important question before the country at the present time was not whether the security of the state was being undermined by the infiltration of this fifth column into many of the public offices but whether there had been anything done which might be prejudicial to an accused person when he came before the court of justice. We are all as attached as the hon. member for Calgary West to the proper administration of justice, whether it be criminal or civil, as it has been practised under the British system which has become our own, but there has been nothing shown anywhere which constitutes any violation of any right which any individual may have when he comes to answer for any charge brought against him.
One person not reported against by the commission, who could not be reported against because he had not been heard by the commission and because he could not be called upon to appear before the commission, was mentioned in the evidence that was put before the crown prosecutor for the purpose of making charges against some one who had been heard and who had been examined. Counsel retained came to the conclusion that it would not be proper to prosecute one person for con-
spiracy with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) without at the same time bringing charges against him. Those charges were laid, an arrest was made and the next morning he appeared before the court in Montreal and within a very few hours was released on bail.
Doctor A. N. May was arrested in London, certainly as much as three weeks ago, and the Ottawa Journal's five o'clock edition today reports:
Bail refused for Dr. A. N. Hay in London Court-British scientist held for trial in s>py case.
London, March 19.-Dr. Allan Nunn May, 34-year-old British physicist who worked in Canada on nuclear research in the war-time pursuit of atomic energy, to-day was held for trial in Old Bailey Orimdniail Court, April 13, on charges of violating the Official Secrets Act hy giving atomic information to an undisclosed person.
Dr. M.ay was refused bail by Magistrate McKenna of Bow Street Court, who said the defendant's release might be "against public policy."
Doctor May, like everybody else, is deemed to be innocent until found guilty, but Doctor May was refused, pending further investigation of the charges against him, to be allowed his temporary freedom on bail because it might be against public policy.
Here the royal commissioners held that it would be against public policy and would be apt to defeat the basic purposes for which this basic investigation had been instituted if the persons they wished to interrogate were not detained pending their interrogation. That has taken more time than we hoped it might take, but there was only one of two courses to follow. One would have been to treat this as of not sufficient importance to warrant any other action than perhaps a discreet dismissal of those who might be suspected of having engaged in. the spying proceedings. The other was to take steps to make sure that we would ascertain, as far as it is possible to do so, to what extent this virus had penetrated into branches of the public service and, as is suggested to me, throughout the country at large. We knew that there would be serious political embarrassment for us in taking the latter course. One of the most embarrassing features about public life that I have been up against in the short time that I have been in it is the necessity of making decisions based upon facts you know but cannot fully disclose to the public. This is not the first time that I have been up against that difficulty. Some hon. members were here in 1944 when I had to take a stand based upon the facts which I knew and which in my opinion fully justified the stand I took, but at that time those facts could not be made known. Last May it was possible to go to places where my conduct

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
had been severely criticized and tell them then the facts which I knew at the time I made the decision and to say to them: Is there any one of you here who, had you been in my place and had known those facts, would not have done as I did? And I got a satisfactory answer.
This is another occasion where we are not free at the present time to disclose more than has been disclosed by public statements or by this white paper. We had to make a decision, well knowing that in the meantime it would involve the probability of criticism, the probability of serious criticism. My colleagues know to what extent I pointed out what criticism we would be up against when we had to defend this line of conduct, but I am confident that the public of Canada when this thing is over will, as did the public of other parts of Canada last May, feel that we took the right course, the courageous course, the only course under which it was possible to satisfy the responsibility we had for the safety of government-I do not mean the government of a party but the safety of our form of government in this country.
With respect to individuals, whenever the moment arises for them to have to answer to the charges against them, even before an adverse report is made about them by the commission, they are brought before the commissioners as required by these sections read by the hon. member are told what the facts are which indicate that they should be critically reported upon by the commissioners and are asked if they wish to have counsel. They are told that they are free to adduce further evidence if they see fit to do so, and after that they are not found guilty because the royal commission has no power to find anyone guilty or to impose any sentence upon anyone. The royal commission makes a report, and on that report the government has to take the responsibility, as the Prime Minister said in his statement of February 15 it would take, of determining whether or not such person will be prosecuted.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the
minister permit a simple question? Was it after they had been examined under oath that they were given that opportunity?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is after they are examined under oath that they are given that opportunity. They are examined under oath, not to determine whether they have done anything personally, but to inform the commission what they know about the extent of this conspiracy as it affects the body politic.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Including themselves.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Including themselves and including the rest of the 11,500,000 or 12,000,000 Canadians.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Agreed, but about 11,999,990 of the others are out of gaol, are they not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This investigation had to be made or had to be omitted. I would not have taken the responsibility of passing over the information that was characterized by the experienced members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as -being probably authentic.
Some suggestion has been made that we first heard of this in September and that it was not until February that a royal commission was set up. In due time full explanations will be available to the Canadian public for that delay, and when those explanations are available I think the Canadian public will find them satisfactory.
The Prime Minister indicated last night that we did not feel that this country should be made the base for spying out information affecting our neighbours to the south or affecting the United Kingdom, and that it was proper to communicate to them beforehand such information as was available. The information on which Doctor A. N. May was charged was information obtained at the same time in the same way, and those proceedings, hon. members will recall, coincided with the institution of proceedings here. It was felt, and I think properly so, that our action should be synchronized with all such action as might be taken elsewhere arising out of the same set of facts.
The hon. member says that a great judge has stated that it would be better that ten guilty persons should escape condemnation than that one innocent person be found guilty of an offence which he did not commit. That is all very well, and that is no doubt the rule which will be followed and strictly applied in the courts of justice before which this case will have to appear. But in this royal commission the purpose was not to pronounce upon the innocence or guilt of any of ten or thirteen or more persons but to find out to what extent the security of this state had been endangered by a conspiracy to set up this fifth column in our country. I submit, and I take full responsibility for the view, that when gentlemen such as the two members of the royal commission, such as the eminent counsel who have been associated with them, report that the only effective way to make the investigation which the circum-

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
stances require is to detain and interrogate persons who may have knowledge about it, it wat proper to accept that advice and to proceed with that investigation.
Had it not been at this time it could not have been done in that way. It was done in that way only because it so happened that an order in council which had been made on October 6, 1945, was still in force. If there had been no legal way of doing it I would have felt no responsibility. But when there was a legal way, when there was a way by which it could legally be done, I could not take the responsibility of refusing to comply with the advice which was given to me. I will not say I was happy that there was a legal way of doing it. It would have been much more comfortable for me to be able to say, "This cannot legally be done".
Reference has been made to the excluding of habeas corpus. That is not technically correct. There has been no setting aside of the statute of Charles providing for habeas corpus. All that the habeas corpus statute provides for is that anyone who is detained may require that he be brought before a judge so that the judge will determine whether or not there is a legal case for his detention. Any one of these persons could have applied for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus, but it would have done him no good, because as soon as the judge would have been shown the order in council under which such person was detained, and the order in council which authorized it, he would have said, "You are legally detained". And that would have required the quashing of the wrrit. So that no writ of habeas corpus would have had any practical effect under these proceedings, any more than the writ of habeas corpus which was issued during the last war and which was the occasion for the leading case that decides the effect of the War Measures Act.
The writ was issued and it went through to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the decision was that things done under the War Measures Act had the effect of a statute to provide a legal cause for the detention of the man. The same would have happened here. The writ of habeas corpus is not set aside. There is provision for the detention of an individual, something which is not according to the ordinary rules of law, and if it is regularly provided by parliament, or under the authority of parliament, it requires the writ to be quashed just as effectively as if it were a conviction in an ordinary court.


Mr. FULTON:: Will the minister permit a. question? Will he tell us how a person held incommunicado could bring a writ of habeas corpus?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My hon. friend is himself a lawyer and he does not need my advice-	.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A lawyer, not a magician.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: -as to how that could be done. It is no business of the custodian of a person who is held to provide opportunities for the issuing of these writs. There may be facts which create difficulties in the way of having a writ. One could imagine, for instance, someone being arrested and detained . in the wilderness of the north.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not in Canada.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would not be easy for him to have a writ issued, but that would not mean that he did not have his legal right to the writ. These are circumstances which result from the facts, but they create no legal obstacle.	*
There is just one other point to which I wish to refer. It is personal. I do not like to have to refer to it but I think I should. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) called attention to a statement I made in the crossfire of discussion when the emergency powers bill was being debated in committee on December 6 last. There had been some discussion there over a secret order in council providing for the examination of seamen. It was an order which it was alleged had not been published but had been tabled in this house about a month before. I said that was not a secret order and that there were no secret orders. The leader of the opposition was kind enough to say he was quite convinced I had not meant to mislead the house, and I hoped no one in the house would believe that on any occasion I would wish to mislead the house. I had no thought at that time of this order, which had not been used, which had been prepared for use in the event that this rendezvous which the hon. member for Calgary West says no one would have been dumb enough to keep after Gouzenko had abstracted certain papers from the Russian embassy had not taken place.
As I said before, I felt a great relief that no orders were required to be made under this, and it had entirely slipped my memory. Had I thought of it at any time since and looked at it, I would have been inclined, before December 31, before the date when the War Measures Act ceased to be operative, to have had it modified, to require the proceedings which in fact I did ask to have accom-

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
plished before I signed any orders, because once again I do not think a member of the executive branch of government should in peace time have powers of that nature that he can exercise of his own volition. It is only very rarely that any extraordinary proceedings can be taken, because the whole of the normal legislation has to be statutory, and there is nothing in the Inquiries Act which authorizes the detention of persons for interrogation. They are compelled to appear. They are not allowed counsel unless the commissioners feel that they should have them. This denial of counsel of which so much has been made is something which has been provided by this parliament before the hon. member for Calgary West or the member for Quebec East came into this parliament. This parliament decided that in cases of royal inquiries the right to counsel would exist from a given moment. Parliament [DOT]determined that up to that moment it would be discretionary for the commissioners as to whether those called before them would have counsel or not.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They may.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The commissioners may do it, but they are not required to do it, and they may refuse to do it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They did,
apparently.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And they did; but in doing that they were carrying out a provision passed by this parliament which has stood on the statute book for a great many years.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It was never intended to track down spies.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Un.til quite recently in this country it was never thought that any government would have to track down spies in its own service, and I hope that from this time onward the result of this commission will be such that that unpleasant duty will never fall upon any other government. But if it does and should it at any time again become necessary I hope there will be in office a government that will not shirk the responsibility of doing its duty.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on his feet. Would he permit me to ask the Minister of Justice a question? I suggested last evening that two persons who had been held had been treated in a particular manner. To-night the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) referred to it. Would the minister tell us what he knows about it? I think it is something that should be cleared up^

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I fully agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Had it been possible for me to get to the Department of Justice to-day I would have been in a position to give the answer. Unfortunately I was not able to get to the department today. There was a meeting of the treasury board at half-past nine o'clock, and from that moment until this it has not been possible for me to get to the responsible officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to find out exactly what are the facts in that regard. I know that I discussed with the commissioner at the outset the treatment to be accorded to these persons, and we both agreed that they should be subjected to as little inconvenience as possible, and that we should endeavour in' our representations to the commission and to the counsel to make .the duration of that inconvenience as short as possible. I shall make inquiry, but I shall not promise to give the answer to-morrow, because I think it is serious enough for the commissioner to make a full inquiry and have before him all those who were in charge of the persons who were being detained for interrogation.


Mr. BRACKEN:: May I be permitted to ask a question? When the minister was speaking he corrected the hon. member for Calgary West with respect to one factual matter. The hon. member for Calgary West thought that the matter had been brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice in September last. The minister said that was an error, but he did not tell us when it was brought to his attention.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In a general way it was reported to me on the following day.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.
Mr. _ST. LAURENT: Hon. members need not laugh. I am trying to give the leader of the opposition the full facts as I am sure he would like to have them. If it is not suitable to other hon, members that I give them to him here I shall be glad to give them to him privately. The day after Gouzenko's visit to my secretary I was informed that the Ottawa police had requested the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police about this man, and I told them then they were free to see him and to get the story from him. Then as it developed in the course of a few following days I was apprised from time to time of what information was being obtained.


John Bracken: When was the first day?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was .the day of the opening of the house, September 6, and on September 7 I was told that this same man
The Address-Speaker's Ruling

who had tried to see them the day previous, and with respect to whom I had told them that they must not see him, had been brought to them through the instrumentality of the Ottawa police.


John Bracken: Was that contrary to what the hon. member for Calgary West said?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think so. I gathered from the hon. member that he was under the impression that I had received this Mr. Gouzenko and had heard his story when he came from the Russian embassy. That I refused to do, and it was only when he was brought into contact with the police through the ordinary course of the police work that they were permitted to listen to his story and take notes from him.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, before I
proceed with the speech that I had intended to deliver I should like to ask for your ruling on a point of order, and, of course, to be governed by it. I thought I would be the first speaker on the government side to follow the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and to reply to a motion of want of confidence moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). There has been injected into the debate discussion on a question which was raised on the main motion and nothing whatsoever has been said with regard to the amendment itself. What I should like to know is, am I in order to speak for more than forty minutes? I should like to know that before I begin because I had intended to review some of my experiences in Europe. If I am restricted to forty minutes I shall do it at some other time.


John Bracken: Speaking for this party,
I may say we shall offer no. objection if the Minister of Agriculture requires more than forty minutes to make his reply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is
important. It is not a matter of consent. It is a question of the rules of the house and a matter of right. I think the Speaker ought to decide it. I believe the rule is that any member of the government replying to a motion of want of confidence has whatever length of time he wishes to speak if he is the first person to speak after the motion is made.


James Horace King: The Minister of Justice spoke for only a little more than forty minutes, including his answer to the question which was put to him. Therefore I believe that if the Minister of Agriculture wants to answer for the government it is his privilege under standing order 37 to speak for more than forty minutes.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not know whether that is your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection to the minister exceeding his time to-night, because we want to hear about this agricultural policy, but we do not want a ruling which will establish a precedent in this connection. It seems to me the rule is very clear:
. . . such minister, or ia member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
It seems to me the * minister who speaks immediately after the motion of want of confidence has been moved is the minister replying to the motion.	.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted, the question I raised was in regard to a minister who was not replying at all to the motion of want of confidence. I wanted to know whether in that case I would have the right to speak for more than forty minutes. I should like to have that clear. [DOT]


Mr. MACKENZIE:: May I refer you and the house, Mr. Speaker, to a ruling which will be found on pages 22 and 23 of the Journals of the House of Commons, 1941-42, in which the Speaker of the day ruled that as many as six ministers of the crown whose departments were under attack in a want of confidence motion could each reply for more than forty minutes.


John Bracken: May I say one word with respect to this matter. First of all, let it be clear that we want the Minister of Agriculture to have all the time he wishes this evening. With respect to the decision you. sir, are about to give on the technical point raised, I suggest that the Prime Minister spoke after I did the other day, and no doubt spoke for the government in reply to that motion of want of confidence. If there is some rule that six ministers each may speak for more than forty minutes, that is another matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apart from what my hon. friend says, another motion was moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: But was that a motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly it was a motion in the nature of a want of confidence motion.


James Horace King: The Speaker has been asked for a ruling, and with the permission of the house I shall give that ruling.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I just say this, Mr. Speaker. I was on my feet and sat down because you rose; I did not wish to be disrespectful to the Chair, but I would point out that if mine was a want of confidence motion then I had the right to speak for more than forty minutes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But you did not do so.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I have been denied that privilege on other occasions in this house; the ruling of Mr. Speaker is there to confirm that statement. Consequently there can be only one want of confidence motion before the house, and I moved an amendment to it. The government cannot have it both ways.


James Horace King: I believe the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is right when he says that a member moving a motion of want of confidence in the government is entitled to speak for more than forty minutes. When the hon. gentleman spoke I did not ask him to resume his seat because he had spoken for more than forty minutes. I was asked by the Minister of Agriculture for a . -'ing as to whether he might speak for more then forty minutes. The question now before the house is the amendment and the subamendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) respectively. The Minister of Justice did not answer for the government in regard to the amendment or the subamendment, so that I believe it is the privilege of the Minister of Agriculture to answer for the government. Therefore he is entitled to speak for more than forty minutes if he wishes to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention-


James Horace King: If the hon. member will resume his seat, he knows perfectly well that the ruling of the Speaker is not debatable, so that he cannot raise the question now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The ruling is wrong.


James Horace King: The Minister of Agriculture has the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: My desire was to have the question cleared up before I began my remarks, in order that I might govern myself accordingly; and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the ruling you have given.
In discussing the question raised by the amendment and subamendment I desire to deal with the situation referred to in the speech from the throne, which has been commented upon by those who have been discussing this matter and particularly by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). In his remarks dealing with food he made this statement, as reported at page 27 of Hansard of March 18:
I now come to a discussion of agriculture and food. The speech from ithe throne tells us that the most pressing problem demanding immediate attention is the food problem. That is a fact we have known' for months-(that is, everybody except the government. We heard about their new policy first in the speech from the throne.
I do not know whether that remark was intended to leave the impression it left with me, which was that the speech from the throne was referring to a condition which related more particularly to Canada. The speech from the throne had this to say:
Of world problems demanding 'immediate action, the most pressing as the provision of food to those peoples facing acute shortage, and, in some regions, widespread famine. The chance of a peaceful reconstruction of the world depends on food. The shortage at the present time is very great. The problem, moreover, is not only for the next few months, but also for the next few years.
With this statement appearing in the speech from the throne I am in entire agreement, and I wish to 'ay a word in regard to discussions in which I took tsrt during the last session. Last fall, when we We.e discussing in this house whether we should have rationing of meat I made a statement which was quoted in the press from one end of Canada to the other and commented upon by quite a number of newspapers. I repeated a remark I had heard a few days previously made by a minister of the gospel in one of the churches of this city, to the effect that there was a possibility there might be as many as three hundred thousand children 'on the continent of Europe who would lose their lives as a result of starvation, particularly in those areas with which we in this country are concerned, unless something was done to jAovide them with more food than it was then apparent they were going to receive. Since making that remark I have had the privilege of visiting most of the countries I had in mind when making that statement, and I think I am in duty bound to make some report to the house in regard to what I found in that particular area and the effect upon any policies the government may be called upon to announce now in regard to foodstuffs and their distribution.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

During the six or seven weeks I was on the other side of the ocean I had the privilege of travelling across Great Britain at two different points by car, and of travelling by train throughout the length of the greater part of the island known as Great Britain. I also had the privilege of covering a considerable part of France, of Belgium, of Holland; and of Denmark, as well as a considerable part of Germany both by aeroplane and by automobile.
I did not do as I was warned not to do when I was in, Paris. A guide who was taking me about the city said, "Do not. go back to Canada and say what one other person said who was here in Paris lately, upon returning, to the United States." I asked the guide what had been said, and I was told that particular person had lived at the Ritz hotel.-where I myself was stopping-had gone back to this continent and had made the statement, which had appeared in the press, to the effect that conditions were no worse in Paris than they were on this continent.
With that warning I was careful not to remain all my time in the Ritz hotel. I drove out into the country districts of France and other countries, in so far as it was possible for me to do so, and visited in those country places as well. I took my meals not only in the Ritz hotel, and in other hotels similarly situated, but took some of them in country districts, in ordinary restaurants, just as anyone would walk in off a street and order a meal. On other occasions I was at farm houses when meals were being served. While I did not have meals in all those farm houses, be-cau.se I was not invited in some, yet I did stand and watch people who were eating their meals in houses where 1 was not invited. Therefore I did gain some knowledge as to what conditions are in the areas I visited.
In addition to that, I had an opportunity to visit with men who have been placed in charge of the occupied areas in Germany, and with men who are looking after food supplies in some other sections. What I wish to report to the house is this, that each one of the men I interviewed, who had responsible positions in connection with the distribution of food, and all those with whom I came in contact, assured me that no one had died from starvation in those areas, at least since the armies moved from active battles of warfare to occupation.
I state that merely to impress upon the minds of members of the house and of the people of Canada generally the reports that were made, and the results of what I myself saw. I hope that the decision which we did reach last year, and similar decisions reached
(Mr. Gardiner.]
in other countries did have the effect of placing sufficient food at the disposal of those who are administering those areas, to avoid having children dying from starvation.
But having said that, I would not wish members of the House of Commons to conclude that there is no hardship, that there is no trouble on the continent of Europe in the matter of food supplies. There are very serious difficulties, as the speech from the throne indicates, and I am sure that we as a people have a desire to do everything we possibly can in order to right a condition which does exist there, and to do it as rapidly as possible.
But in order to impress further upon the minds of hon. members what I believe to be the condition there, may I say this, that one can say the worst of which he could conceive with regard to conditions in certain spots or in certain areas, more or less limited so far as their effect upon the population as a whole is concerned. For example, if one is in the centre of the city of Hamburg, where there has been great destruction, he will see smoke-stacks sticking out of basements, with smoke belching from them, indicating that there are people living under the rubble covering the basements of buildings which were blasted by bombing.
No doubt there is great hardship there, and perhaps great difficulty in getting sufficient food to those people. But on the other hand one can go into the rural districts in the different countries about which I have spoken, and sometimes even into the smaller urban communities, sometimes even into sections of cities, and find that the people who are living in those particular areas have sufficient food to ward off anything in the nature of starvation. In some places one even finds it possible to receive meals that are just as good as those received by the American who stopped only in the Ritz hotel, and who went back to America and reported that one can be just as well fed there as he could be anywhere on this continent.
Well, then, you may ask me what the great difficulties are in connection with the situation. I would say they are threefold. First, there has been great damage done to the transportation systems. And even where food is available, in certain areas it is almost impossible to have it transported to other areas where it may be in great need.
In addition to that, there is the difficulty in connection with exchange. Some of the people who are there have been supplied with funds during a time when a government which does not now exist issued currency. As a result of that, there is great difficulty in disposing of

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
commodities for a currency which will be accepted at its face value by those who have it for distribution.
Then there is a most serious condition, one with which we are most concerned here, namely that there is not sufficient food in any event to feed all the people in those areas as they ought to be fed, even when we take into consideration the amount which under present conditions we are able to ship to them.
Those are the three outstanding difficulties, as I see them; and they are the difficulties which must be overcome before people can be properly fed. Indeed, two of them must be overcome before they can be properly fed, even if we supply the full quantity of food required in those districts.
I wish to say something at this time respecting the control conducted by the armies of occupation in those three sections of Germany at which I had the pleasure of looking for a short time, and over limited areas. I was along with officials who gave me whatever information was available in connection with the matter.
I feel that we have in the administration of the three armies of occupation, in so far as I was able to see them working, as complete -and as effective an organization as can be set up for the distribution or ioou unaer rne conditions existing on the continent of Europe.
I say that in order to indicate that possibly we can best meet the situation which exists there by putting any food we have available for distribution in that area-so long as those armies of occupation are in charg.-at the disposal of those who have been p aced there to administer its distribution, rather than by placing it there in some other way.
In addition to that, I shou'd like to say I was agreeably surprised a' the provision made in camps in which p-ople have been congregated by the occupation forces, to take care of people who came, we will say, into Berlin, ahead of the armies. They are being taken care of by those who are in charge of the administration in the certain sections of that city.
I had the privilege of going through one of those camps in which five thousand of those people were congregated, and of seeing conditions there at first hand. I need only say that the property upon which they were congregated is the barracks in which the German army in that section had been trained since possibly the time of Bismarck. The buildings are Veil constructed and the equipment for taking care of 6,000 people is all that one could expect in any refugee camp or any organized camp anywhere. What this reminded 63260-7
me of more than anything else I had ever seen was my experience in Winnipeg when we had people coming to this country from central European countries in hundreds of thousands during a twelve month period. I used to go down to the immigration hall in Winnipeg and see people who had just come off the trains seated about on the floor, on benches, on whatever equipment they may have had, on bundles of clothing or anything else they might have with them. These people were living under exactly the same kind of conditions and they looked like the same type of people. They seemed to be just about as well satisfied as you could have people who are forced away from home.
Another thing that surprised me more than anything else was that the British government, which was the government that had charge of this particular camp, was not only taking care of and clothing all these people, as well as feeding them, but had schools organized with school teachers teaching the children. I must say that the children in those schools showed by the satisfaction on their faces that they were being as well treated and as well cared for as any group of children could be under the conditions that exist when an army has moved across a country and npAnlo I

	, <=u m ahead of the army and
must be taken care of until they "an be redistributed back to where they came tram or somewhere else.
I wanted to say these things, not only to remove from the minds of members but from the minds of people in Canada some of the ideas that we get when we listen to propaganda put on at great distances away from the scene of activity. I just wish to say, in order that I may not be misunderstood, that one could go to any of these areas one day or one week and look around, then go back three weeks later and look around and get an entirely different picture. I was in Paris on a day when, there were fifteen degrees of frost, when army tracks were still moving about the streets, when buses were being overthrown at street corners in spite of the fact that the local police were trying to direct traffic. One found a condition there which gave one a certain impression. I came away from Paris feeling that I had seen a very dejected people, a people who were suffering because of need, a people who were not properly clothed, a people who required a great deal of sympathy and care from those of us outside. As a result of that experience, we cabled to this country and asked for more wheat for France. I wish to report to the house that those who were in authority here, the wheat board, saw to it immediately that

The Address-Mr. Gardiner


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister give the date of that pamphlet?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was in 1919.


James Arthur Ross: A long time ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Our methods of farming, I am sure the leader of the opposition will agree, are fairly consistent.


Mr. ROWE:: There were not as many
starving men as now. And were bonuses paid then?


James Garfield Gardiner: the war we had in western Canada a condition of which western Canada has been trying to avoid a repetition.
With those statements before us I should like now to deal with the situation that exists. The leader of the opposition in his speech yesterday said:
To-day in western Canada nearly one-third, thirty per cent, of th-e cultivated land devoted to the growing of cereal crops lies fallow each year, producing nothing. Prior to 1941 the normal amount lying fallow for that purpose was iabocut twenty-five per cent. We have increased the percentage of fallow land lying barren every year since we started paying people not to giyw wheat.
My hon. friend across the way asked me a few moments ago if I would still be in favour of paying people not to grow wheat. I will answer that question as well as the suggestion. Prior to 1941'


James Arthur Ross: If the minister will permit a question, does he believe that under the present system of agriculture in western Canada that the bare fallow is the best system? Is it in keeping with the more recent advice of the professor of farm management in the Saskatchewan university? The whole picture has changed in the last few years.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will still abide by the opinion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition which I quoted a few moments ago. The leader of the opposition did suggest in his speech yesterday that we return to the acreage of the period preceding the war. Let us see what the results were of having those acreages preceding the war and what .the results have been of following the policy which the government has followed, namely, of encouraging people to go to a very much higher level in summer-fallowing for a period, then returning to a level which is considerably lower than that proposed by the leader of the opposition yesterday. He suggested yesterday that we might put another four million or five million acres of land into wheat this year without exceeding the crop acreage which we had in the years up to 1940. That is perfectly true. We had in the neighbourhood of 29 million acres of land in wheat in 1940; in the year preceding that, 27 million acres, and in the years immediately preceding that, the acreage were higher than the proposed acreage for this year.
What results did we obtain during that period of time? The results we obtained were reported to the December conference and I quote from the report. The average yield of wheat in the years from 1935 to 1939 was 312 million bushels. What was the result in

the years following 1940 down to 1944, during the period when we were paying people to take land out of wheat and put it into summer-fallow and thus prepare their land better, as suggested by the professor of husbandry in Saskatchewan in earlier years, which advice the farmers have tried to follow under our leadership since 1940. The result was this. The average crop from 1935 to
1939	was 312 million bushels, and the average from 1940 to 1944 was 426 million bushels. Just as stated in the article by the leader of the opposition, it is possible to grow more wheat on less land if you properly summet-fallow the land. So it has proven that from
1940	to 1944, with an average of 426 million bushels a year, more wheat was produced than in the period to the practices of which he wishes us to return, when only an average of 312 million bushels was produced.


William Earl Rowe: Does rain have effect on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has about as much effect on that as moisture has on my hon. friend.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH:	Were those
years fairly comparable? That is to say, was the rainfall just the same in the latter years as in the former?


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose no two years are comparable. One can say this, that it would be improper to suggest that any one thing had everything to do with the increase or decrease in production. It has been argued on the floor of the house and outside that summer-fallowing is not a proper policy to follow under present conditions, and I am suggesting that we did follow that policy of greatly increasing summer-fallow and we got the best results we have had in the whole history of Saskatchewan. In 1944-45 the one year between then and now, we had 436 million bushels.
In oats, from 1935 to 1939 we had 338 million bushels, and the average from 1940 to 1944 was 464 million bushels, while for the year 1944-45 it was 500 million bushels. In barley the average from 1935 to 1939 w'as 89 million bushels.


John Bracken: Would the minister mind repeating those figures fdr oats?


James Garfield Gardiner: For oats, it was 338 million bushels in the first group of years, the average for the five-year period from 1935 to 1939 inclusive, and from 1940 to 1944 inclusive it was 464 million bushels, while production for 1944-45 was 500 million bushels. In barley, for the first period the production was 89 million bushels; for the second period, 177 million bushels, and for the year 1944-45

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
it was 195 million bushels. If we had had the increase only in grain production it could be argued that by that policy you do not get more food than by following the other policy, and therefore it might still be argued that we ought to go back to the same policy we followed from 1935 to 1939. But let us look at the figures.
In addition to these enormous amounts of grain, we had delivered to the market in the first period an average of 3,338,000 hogs and in the period from 1940 to 1944 we delivered 6,783,000 hogs, or more than double. In 1945 we delivered 5,900.000. Coming to cattle, the figure was 1,031,000 in the first period, 1,144,000 in the second period, and 1,720,000 in 1944. In eggs the production was 219,523,000 dozen in the first period, 287,447.000 dozen in the second period, and 395,019,000 dozen last year.
Let us now take dairy products. Let us take milk-the total milk production. There was an average of 15,282,097.000 pounds in the first period, 17,032,239,000 pounds in the second period, and 17,618,810,000 pounds in 1945. In creamery butter there were 254 million pounds in the first period, 289 million pounds in the second period, and 293 million pounds in the year 1944-45. In cheese we had 119,922,000 pounds in the first period, 168,650,000 pounds in the second period, and 184,451,829 pounds in the year 1944-45.
What I wish to call attention to is this. The government followed a certain line of policy in the first period. We did not ask the farmers to do anything in particular in the way of farming. We said, "We will try to market the products you produee, no matter what kind. We will try to do our best to take care of the surpluses you have in other directions." That was the same government that is in power now. If my hon. friend had suggested that we should have gone back to the preceding five years it would not have been the same government and the results in those preceding five years would not have been as good as from 1935 to 1939. Taking him at his word, he asked us to go back to the period in which this government was in power from 1935 to 1939, when we obtained the results I have indicated by following that policy. In 1940 we changed the policy, and I may say that when changing it I made a statement on the floor of the house which I believe hon. members will allow me to read now since it comes so close to giving almost to the bushel what has been produced that I feel like claiming some of the characteristics of a prophet in connection with it. I may say that there was no one on the opposition side of the house-and I am inclined to think there were
not many on the government side-who agreed with me when I made this statement on my return from Britain in 1940. I will read it and hon. members will see what it sounds like now. I am reporting here what I had stated in Britain while I was there in October, 1940. On my return to this country in November I submitted a report in which I stated-


John Bracken: What was that document?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is Hansard. It is my speech, but it is taken out of Hansard.


John Bracken: 1940?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, November. I said:
On the supply side, Canada could expect to produce on an average 380 million bushels of wheat a year.
She has produced around 426 million recently.
That is her average for the last fourteen years arid more than her average for the last five years, including the last two crops. Her total production in five years thus would amount to 1,900. million bushels. To this should be 'added the 280 million bushelis carried over into 1940-41 from previous years, making ia total quantity of 2,180 million bushels, which dt would be necessary for Canada to dispose of an the five-year period.
That was in November, 1940. We are now in the spring of 1946, or just a little beyond the end of that five-year period.
It appeared, therefore, according to the above figures that Canada would have 2,180 million bushels of wheat to sell in the five-year period, and that during the same period she probably would be able to market 2,080 million bushels of wheat, leaving a carry-over at the end of that time of only 100 million bushels.
It must be recalled that we had 280 million bushels of a carryover at the beginning of that crop year, and that we were on the upgrade in production. Most people did not believe that it was possible that we would be down to 100 million bushels of wheat by the end of the five-year period if the greater part of that period was taken up with war; but the statement was made, and I continued:
Moreover, if Canada continued to be able to sell 30 million bushels a year to 'those countries outside Europe-
And we can do that at the present time.
-which were not being blockaded, instead of there being a surplus of 100 million bushels at the end of the five-year period the demand for Canadian wheat would be 50 millions bushels greater than the supply.
Well, that is just about where we are. I went on to say:
I do not consider, therefore, that Canadian wheat producers need be pessimistic, but may I
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

say again' that there is nothing dm these figures which should induce Canadian wheat growers to increase their acreage this year.
That was in 1941.
As a matter of fact there ds very much in them upon which to 'ask farmers at least to go back to the acreage they bad in the year previous to last year which was two million acres lower than the land sowed to grain last year.
The leader of the opposition suggested yesterday that the farmers are not prepared to accept the advice of the present government and went on to say that it was really the $4 an acre which induced them to reduce their wheat acreage and increase their summer-fallow land. I do not care much which way he prefers to give the credit. Whichever way. he gives the credit it comes to the government. The government offered the policy of paying $4 an acre to get land taken out of wheat and put into summerfallow. The farmer accepted the advice, and he not only took two million acres out of wheat as we suggested on this occasion, but took over six million acres out of wheat in 1941 and put a very great part of the land into summer-fallow. Then in the following year, with the greatest acreage of summerfallow we have ever had in western Canada, 23 million acres or more, the farmers of western Canada reaped a crop of 560 million bushels of wheat, 500 million bushels of oats and between two and three hundred million bushels of barley. As a matter of fact the greatest crop that they have ever grown in western Canada.
That, Mr. Speaker, should be sufficient reason for believing that the wheat policy my hon. friend advocated back in 1916 was right, the policy advocated again in 1919 was just as right, and the only reason he is wrong now is that he is speaking politically instead of as an agriculturist.


John Bracken: Is the minister speaking about the 1942 crop?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, which I think everyone admits is the best crop we have ever grown and is the year in which we had the largest acreage of summerfallow in wheat that we have ever had. That is the position which has been proven sound by the facts throughout the years in connection with agriculture on the western plains.
I submit again that I prefer to suggest to the farmers of western Canada that they, accept the government's policy in connection with acreage in western Canada at the present time rather than the politically considered policy of the leader of the opposition.
fMr. Gardiner.]
The policy which was suggested by the government is one which requires a little investigation because of the remarks made by the leader of the 'Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell). In speaking to the address and in moving the amendment to the amendment which, incidentally expresses not only lack of confidence in the government but lack of confidence in the policy of the opposition because it. wipes out the amendment completely, the leader of the C.C.F. party suggested that we should be planning. I submit to him that the policy to which I have already referred indicates that there has been some planning. That planning began prior to the war. The policy underlying the planning was given expression to in 1940. I submit that it was well outlined and that farmers have followed it almost to the letter in acreage from year to year, and they have got almost the identical results which we indicated they would obtain at that time if they followed that policy.
I quite agree that we ought to have planning, but I suggest to the leader of the C.C.F. party that when planning has been adopted as a part of the policy of the government, when it has been put into effect and has had the land of results which planning during the last six years has had, the least that members of the opposition can do is to admit that there has been some success reached as a result of that planning.
In the first period from 1939 to 1943 we were following a certain line of policy which was suggested to us by the British who were expecting to obtain food from this country It had been suggested to us then that the facts were as they were stated in this house in other language by the leader of the opposition yesterday, namely, that it takes five to eight pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat, and that a pound of grain will keep an individual who is threatened with starvation alive as long as a pound of meat. Therefore the proper thing for them to do when threatened by blockade which might bring starvation is to produce cereals. The appeal made to'us was that during the period when they were putting six million acres of land into cereals we might take land out of cereals and put the emphasis upon the production of meat. Therefore we took about ten million acres out of the production of cereals for human consumption and put it into summerfallow and those coarse grains and grasses that were necessary for the production of live stock products. What is the result? We reduced ou.r wheat acreage from some twenty-nine million acres to under seventeen 'million acres, and we increased our

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
production of live stock and live-stock products as well as grain in the amounts that have been suggested in the figures that I have given to this house.
That policy was carried on until the fall of 1943. Then a change was made. That change was announced in the setting of a price for grain very much higher than that which prevailed prior to the fall of 1943. The floor price of wheat was raised from ninety cents to $1.25. The price of oats was subsidized at ten cents a bushel; the price of barley was subsidized at fifteen cents a bushel, with the result that w'e had criticism from almost every hon. member on the other side of the house. They said that our hog production was bound to go down. Well, like my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who spoke a few moments ago, I can say that there are times when you have the facts and cannot give them to the house. There are times when you have the facts and cannot give them to the people of Canada or to the people of any particular country. We were still at war in 1943. In and following 1943 we had ministers coming here from Britain telling us that in the first and probably the second year after the war there would be greater difficulty in feeding the British people than there had been in the most difficult years of the war. They said the reason for that would be twofold; that they would be required to feed people on the continent of Europe, and that it -would not be possible for them to retain in the British isles all the food their people would require unless they could get much greater production of the foods necessary to stave off starvation than they would be able to obtain under the policies followed up to that time.
As I say, in 1943 we were still at war. The further suggestion was made that the allies would be required to feed the people of the western portion of Europe, including most of the industrial areas; that the food for those sections must come largely from the continent of North America. So in 1943 we changed our attitude in the matter of production. We did not go to the conferences at that time and say, "Don't increase your *wheat acreage any further." We went and offered a higher price -for grain. I personally addressed twenty-five meetings in western Canada. I said, "We have been appealing to you to produce meat supplies. We are now coming to you and saying this. You can sell all the meat supplies you desire to produce between now and the end of the . war and for a year or two after, at a price comparable with the price you are getting
now." At the same time, however, I said, "We are giving you a price for grain which compares favourably with the price you are receiving for live stock products, and for the time being we are prepared to leave which you produce to the judgment of the farmers." We suggested that they might decide it on this basis. If a man had to have cash immediately he had better stay in live stock production. If he could afford to hold his grain for two or three yea: s or more, then we had no objection to his going into the production of wheat.
Under that police what happened? In two years-and the r eater part of it in one year -the farinas increased their wheat acreage by over six million acres; they went back into the production of wheat to that extent. What I wish to point out to the house is that we did not wait until the end of the war; we did not wait until everyone over in Europe was shouting for more food, before we changed our policy from one of encouraging the intensive production of meat and dairy products to one of increasing the production of wheat. We started that policy in 1943, and as a result we were the one nation in the whole world to which all the other countries were coming to plead for some of the wheat we had conserved during the preceding war years. Why, at the beginning of this year we had still in our elevators some 258,000,000 bushels of wheat. In spite of the fact that we had a light crop last year because of difficult weather conditions, there is more wheat to market in 1946 than we marketed in any single year in the history of this country, prior to the last few years, since 1928. As a result, this year we are marketing to the people of the world an average of about a million bushels of wheat for each of the 365 days of the year. Of that wheat about 160,000,000 to 180,000,000 bushels are requested to feed the British people. Most of the remainder is going to those countries of Europe that are crying for more food.
I repeat that the plans which were laid down in 1940 and carried through in 1941, 1942 and 1943 resulted in the highest production of meat products and live stock products generally that-we have ever had; and, in the last few years, have resulted in the highest production of cereals, including wheat for human consumption and cereals for the feeding of live stock. As a result the highest production of live stock itself that we have ever seen in the whole history of this country was produced in one year, 1944.
What is the situation, Mr. Speaker? In most of the last six years we have produced almost forty per cent more food, in tonnage,
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

from the lands of Canada, than we have produced in any previous six-year period during the whole history of this country. In western Canada we have produced more than in any other six years. This is the land which in 1936 and 1937 I defended in this house against speakers on the opposition side who were saying we ought to move the population off it, that we could never again make this land produce as it had produced previously. In spite of all that was said during the drought period, however, in the last six years we have produced more tonnage on that land than was produced from it in any other six-year period.
What bearing has that upon the question which is before us tonight? All the exports of food products from the Dominion of Canada now have their origin directly or indirectly in that section of the country which a few years ago we were calling the drought area. All the wheat that goes out of this country comes from there. The greater part of the grain produced in other sections of the country, as, for example, Manitoba, would be consumed in this country in feed, in seed for the next year's crop, or in food for human consumption. The greater part of the wheat we have for export comes out of the area sometimes spoken of as the Palliser triangle. When we do not have a crop in that area we have very little wheat to export. When we have a crop in that area we have large quantities of wheat to export.
The same thing applies to live stock products in this country. If we produced no live stock other than what could be fed with feed grown on the farms of eastern Canada we would not produce enough live stock in this country to feed our own population. Out west we have lands on which we cannot carry live stock in any great numbers, but where we can produce grain to advantage. When we have good rains or when we summerfallow the land properly, we get a reasonable production in that area. It is almost exactly as the leader of the opposition said in his article back in 1919. If you summerfallow it you get thirty bushels to the acre. If you do not summerfallow it you get sixteen bushels to the acre. If you try to grow wheat on new breaking you will not get anything at all. That is correct; that is the experience we have had and are still having.
So we say that under this policy we not only increased our production of grain but also increased our production of live stock, not only in the area itself but by shipping the surplus feed grain to eastern Canada. We have paid the freight from Fort William to all over the east; we have given it to the
[Mr Gardiner.]
eastern farmers under a ceiling price, and have asked them to feed it to live stock. Under that policy we produced more live stock and more cereals in Canada, I believe, than could have been produced under any other policy that might have been conceived.
Before closing, I wish to say a word about the wheat policy, as such. This is a matter which concerns my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) more . directly than it concerns me. He has suggested, however, that I say something about it tonight, and I shall do so.
Our wheat policy has been criticized during this session. Our wheat policy has been criticized during other sessions. I have dealt with it in relation to the production of live stock products, and I think I have demonstrated that in the policy we are following we have produced the greatest possible volume of food.
I do not know whether the leader of the C.C.F. party had in mind this telegram when he spoke yesterday.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I have never seen it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then I shall read it, so that my hon. friend will have full advantage of .the information it contains. This telegram, under date of March 13, was addressed to me by the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan. This is what it says:
Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Ottawa, Ont.
Note meeting Combined Food Board Washington fourteenth. Growing pressure here for all out food production to meet world needs. We suggest each farmer produce to maximum consistent with good farm practice. Your reaction to above suggestion appreciated.
I. C. Nollett, Minister of Agriculture.
Well, I gave him my reactions, and I should like to put them upon Hansard. They are contained in my telegram of March 13, 1946, as follows:
Hon. I. C. NoiLlett, Minister of Agriculture, Regina, Sa.sk.
Re tel Dominion Department of Agriculture acting on advice from the dominion-provincial conference has been advising farmers across Canada each December since 1939 how to produce to maximum consistent with good farm practice. Following this plan we encouraged increased live stock production until 1944. In Sept. 1943 we began encouraging wheat production by increasing advance from ninety cents to a dollar twenty-five a bushel. This was done in anticipation of the present situation and was so stated at the time. We have continued in this policy in spite of criticism of reduced hog production until wheat acreage has increased by seven million acres. We are now considering three to five year agreements with Britain which necessitate production1 of other farm commodi-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
ties as *well as wheat. We consider that following the recommendations of last December will result in maximum production consistent with good farm practice.	.
James G. Gardiner.
In other words, we have said that we believe that the farmer will get the maximum of production; not only this year, but for the three or four years with which we are concerned tonight, and not only of wheat but of all essential food products.


Major James William Coldwell: Since I have heard the telegrams may I say I have not seen either of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is so nearly what my hon. friend was trying to say this afternoon that I thought probably he did see it.


Major James William Coldwell: I said it; I was not "trying" to say it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, you said it.


John Bracken: Would the minister let me have a copy of that telegram,


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be in Harvard tomorrow. I have not an extra copy.


John Bracken: I should like to have it tonight.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then my hon. friend may have this copy when I have finished with it>
The position, then, is this, that we believe this country has done all that has been expected of it; indeed, something more than has been expected of it. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have had very kind messages from Great Britain. We have had very kind expressions of opinion from France. We have had very kind expressions of opinion from most of the countries. As a matter of fact, Holland and Belgium have released, for France, some of the grain they were getting from this country, because they believe that they were supplied with more than they actually needed. That was done in order to assist France.
In other words, we believe that, up to date, we have followed a right policy in asking our people to produce wheat from greater acreages during the last two years than previously. But we believe, too, that to go any farther in the matter of taking land out of summerfallow, in order that we might put more land into wheat, would be a mistake. Let ime indicate why I think that. We are asking the farmers this year to put in approximately 24 million acres of wheat. This means that they must put in five million acres more than we have in summer-fallowed land. In other words, they must put in all the summerfallow of last year 63260-8
amounting to 19,300,000 acres; and then they must put in another five million acres which have not been summerfallowed. That is land which had a crop on it last year.
Land cropped last year can be cropped again this year in certain areas. It can be done in Manitoba. It ten be done in the northern part of Saskatchewan, and in certain areas of Alberta. But I am sure non. members from western Canada will agree that in our areas where we have strip farming, and in areas where we are carrying out dry farming, such a practice is neither advisable nor can it ba carried out under the plan which is followed there. They summerfallow half their land-not a third, not a quarter, but half of it. Under the plan which they follow it would be impossible for them to change satisfactorily, even it it would give better results in 1946.
But I think we are all agreed that in areas of that kind better results would not be obtained. So what we are suggesting is that in certain areas they put five million acres of land, or approximately that, into wheat crop which was not summerfallowed last year. And then we say, "Try to summerfallow this year about twenty million acres, or an area similar to whai you summerfallowed Jast year." We believe that if they do that we shall get the best results, not only in the production of cereals but in the production of live stock products; and that w ? shall get those results not only in western Can. da, but in the eastern part of Canada as well, and not only in 1946 but throughout the thre,. or four years referred to in the speech from the throne.
I wish to repeat what I said this afternoon, namely, that there is no intention on the part of this government, nor is there any intention on the part of the British government to ask farmers to take a lower return for these farm products including wheat at any time during the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 than they are getting by way of price to-day.	*
I would suggest that there is a possibility of agreements being concluded within the next two or three days in which the return by way of price-I do not necessarily mean the return by every means-will probably be higher than it has been in any of the years of war.
With that information in hand I hope the farmers of this country will follow the advice given by the dominion-provincial conference which met last fall, with all the information I have given the house before them, and produce, as we believe they can under that policy, the greatest quantity of food products it is possible to produce on the farms of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Burton


Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons I will not follow the suggestion that has been made that at this late hour I should ask your permission to move the adjournment of the debate. One of those reasons is that I believe we should make use of all the time we possibly can to facilitate the business of the house. The suggestion has . been thrown out in previous sessions as well as in this one that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne should be curtailed, although the leaders and a number of frontbenchers would be able to take part in it. I am absolutely opposed to any idea like that. I believe in the time-honoured custom of having the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the budget debate provide opportunities to back-benchers to bring to the attention of parliament and the people as a whole the problems of their constituencies and those in whom they are interested.
Rather than have these two important debates curtailed, I would make the suggestion that instead of their being curtailed we could well convene earlier in the day in view of the fact that no committees are as yet sitting. Also the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne could be carried on without us all being here. To ask us later on to sit morning,', noon and night when we must attend committee meetings, to ask us to rush business through in the last hours of the session is something that I have always opposed.
If I may be so bold, I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the speech he has just made. Regardless of whether a person agrees with him, I think he is always interesting to listen to. While his speech always sounds good when you are sitting here, when you read it next morning in Hansard you begin to wonder just what it was all about. Then, when you get out into the country and hear different versions of it you begin to wonder which speech the minister gave.
While I agree with some of the things stated by the minister; while I agree that at certain times and under certain conditions summer-fallowing is good husbandry, I must say that under the circumstances such as those in which we now find ourselves, as my hon. leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), said yesterday, we need to take some risks.
I may deal with s^me of these matters later on, but while there is yet time this evening I should like to deal with one part of the

minister's address. With his usual ability to defend his policies of years gone by he took a considerable amount of credit to himself and to the government for that wonderful crop that we raised during the year to which he referred. Far be it from me to take away from him any little bit of credit he has coming to him; I am still old-fashioned enough to want to give to the Lord a little credit for having sent us the most wonderful weather we have had for many a long year.
May I on this occasion join with those who have preceded me in congratulating the hon. member who moved the address in reply (Mr. Viau) and the hon. member who seconded it (Mr. Winters). Both of them did credit to themselves and to the constituencies they represent by performing such a difficult task in such an able manner, especially in view of the fact that the subject material, the speech from the throne, gave them very little to work on. In my humble opinion it would have been much more appropriate and to the point to move an address congratulating His Excellency upon the high sense of duty which caused him to read a speech that displayed such a bankruptcy of ideas on the part of his ministers.
It has been my privilege to listen to quite a number of speeches of one kind and another from the throne, but never before have I heard one that displayed such callous indifference to the needs of the people, that showed such a lack of proposals to solve their problems. The greater part of the speech should be rewritten because as it is it is meaningless; it suggests nothing; it departs from the time-honoured custom of forecasting legislation. The remainder of it should be framed as the farewell message of His Excellency.
During the six years of war many members on this side of the house refrained from severe criticism of the government. Possibly we erred on the side of leniency, but we did not want to do anything that might possibly interfere with the war effort. Many times suggestions made in good faith were disregarded. During the session of last fall I for one took the stand that on the basis of certain promises the electors of this country, may I say for better or worse, had returned the government to office and therefore the government should be given an opportunity to wind up the business that had been left unfinished at the time of dissolution and to prepare their plans to fulfil their promises. But look at the speech from the throne, as barren as the minds that conceived it.
For my part the truce is over; the gloves are off. I would be unworthy of the trust placed in me by the great majority of the

The Address-Mr. Burton
people I have the honour to represent were I to remain silent any longer. When I think of those who died so that the rest of us could continue to live our way of life; when I think of those who were fortunate enough to return, and when I think of the hard work and the suffering and the sacrifices made by the vast majority of them, I would be neglectful of my duty if I did not protest against the inadequacy of the government's methods of dealing with our many problems, especially in view of the fact that during the past year and more we have been urging the government to prepare for the needs of peace. But the government has been so deaf to our warnings, so determined to follow its own course, which apparently was the line of least resistance, that it now finds itself unprepared to meet the problems which confront us and which have confronted us during the past six months or more. Those problems are becoming worse at an alarming rate. Thousands of our people are drifting back to the conditions which they had to endure during the 1930's.
The capitalist system-


Mr. MacNICOL:: Do not blame the capitalist system. Blame it on the government.


Joseph William Burton: The capitalist system of so-called free enterprise failed the people before the war; it failed the nation during the time of war, and it will inevitably bring disaster to the people and to the nation unless we hasten to replace it before it breaks down completely with a system of social democracy which will give us economic democracy as well as political democracy, a system that will serve the needs of the people and the nation instead of the whims and insatiable desires of the few.
I pause for a moment to refer to something which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of the Social Credit party said this afternoon. He is reported in the Evening Citizen to have said, and it is headlined "Social Credit or Communism is His Thesis":
There is no other alternative for the future;
it is social credit or communism.
I am convinced that there is a middle way between those two. He went on to say:
From now on capitalism and free enterprise must compete with communism.
I am also informed that he said that Christian democracy was synonymous with free enterprise, and if I am misquoting him I hope he will correct me. May I point out to him that there are many Christians who believe that private enterprise should not be allowed to dominate and exploit the people.


Solon Earl Low: Hear, hear; I believe that.


Joseph William Burton: I could give him quotations from leaders of many religious denominations along that very line, but I shall give only one with which I am familiar:
It is rightfully contended that certain forms of property must be reserved to the state since they carry with them the opportunity for domination -too great to be left in the hands of private individuals without -injury to the community -at large.


William Irvine: Who said that?


Joseph William Burton: His holiness the late Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno. I draw attention to that, -Mr. Speaker, because there are so many abuses and terrible things committed under the capitalistic system that those of us who know what is going on cannot as Christians continue to tolerate those conditions and the things -that brought them about. I have always been anxious to give every hon. gentleman a chance to stand for the things in which he believed, but I contend that when we have conditions as grave as we have had for years under the capitalist system, when we have the suffering and the privation and the want that we have had, surely those who are trying to find a better way, a middle way, should not . always be sniped at. I have said that the capitalist system has failed us in the past. Do I need to bring any proof of that? If so, I call on the million or more of those who were on relief in this country in the so-called hungry thirties. I call on those who were in the soup-kitchen lines. I call on those who were dispossessed of their life savings, and on those who were dispossessed of their homes. Do I need to bring any more proof? Then I would remind the house of the 42 per cent of our young men who in the early days of the war were rejected for military service because of physical disabilities most of which \yere brought on by malnutrition during those depression years.
On motion of Mr. Burton the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 20, 1946.