1946-03-21

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I should like to communicate to the house a report I have received from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to the treatment afforded the persons who were detained at Rockcliffe for interrogation by the .royal commission appointed to inquire into the so-called spy activities. It is dated March 20, 1946:
Dear Mir. St. Laurent:
. With reference to Mr. 'Caldwell's statement in the House of Commons on March 18, in respect to the persons detained in the present espionage inquiry iat Rockcliffe being accommodated in rooms which were brilliantly lighted and in which the lights never were out, the following particulars are submitted for your information.
On the occasion of the detention of the individuals referred to, in view of the fact that they had to be kept incommunicado, it was necessary that each .have his own 'personal guard so as to prevent them from conversing with other persons detained and also as a safety measure to prevent escape.
[Stage Direction]
Official Secrets Act
[Stage Direction]
Certain of the persons detained were given accommodation, individually in large rooms measuring approximately 60 feet by 22 feet, *while others were placed an small! .rooms, approximately 10 feet by 9 feet am measurement, due to no other large rooms .being .available. The small rooms .are those allotted to sergeants of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and are comfortable. As there is no proper cell accommodation at Rockcliffe .barracks, it was necessary that police guards remain in the room with the prisoner throughout the hours of daylight and darkness; consequently, it was necessary that a section of the room 'be lighted >at night, as the guard was not permitted to sleep. These were the normal lights installed for the rooms in question, but after the first few nights were replaced by a shaded reading lamp. Any charge that brilliant lights were installed in any of the rooms is not only untrue, but ridiculous.
AH those detained were treated exactly alike in all respects, and were given exercise daily in the company of an escort.
The complaints mentioned by Mr. Coldwell, M.P., and Mr. Solon Low, M.P., .are denied by two or more of those who were detained, as indicated by the attached^ press reports. No undue pressure or what is known as "third degree" methods were employed by the police, and there was no occasion, or reason for .any unauthorized treatment.
The meals served were those prepared for members of the force, under the supervision of <a dietitian. #
Yours faithfully, *
(.Signed) S. T. Wood,
.Commissioner.
The first clipping annexed- to the report, and referred to in the report, is from the Montreal Standard of March 16, 1946:
"Third-Degree" Grilling Denied by Spy Suspect Special -to The Standard
Ottawa, March 16-One of eight espionage suspects who had been held incommunicado for nearly a month at the R.C.M.P. barracks at nearby Rockdliffe told the Standard to-day that no third degree methods were used in questioning him.
This suspect, now at liberty on bail, refused to -allow himself -to be quoted by name on the advice of his lawyer. Otherwise he talked freely.
"If any coercion was used, it was of a most subtle nature," he said. "There was no physical discomfort-just adroit questioning by the mounties."
He spoke of his own experience only, but believed .that his treatment was not substantially different from that -accorded twelve other persons held in the police -barracks. Eight of these, including the Standard's informant, were -arraigned in court this week and freed on bail.
(Last week an unnamed -lawyer representing one of the detainees said the Mounties were using coercion- -and third degree methods to extort confessions, and -that his client was confined to a "stuffy little room- in which a bright -light was left burning continuously." R.C.M.P. Assistant Commissioner H. A. Royal Gagnon immediately -denied the third degree and coercion -allegations.)

"I was treated quite decently," the Standard's informant sa-id. "Even the guards were respectful-they called -me 'Sir.' We were confin-ed one to a barrack room, and I had practically everything I wanlted-^my sun -lamp, my pas-teils, all my own clothes, good food -and use of the barracks recreational library.
"Wh-at I disliked most was that I wasn't allowed newspapers, was -refused permission to see any visitors, even -my wife, ajnd that I was held d.ay after day with no charge being placed against me.
"My room was a large one, usually used as a dormitory for a number of policemen -attending courses at Rockcliffe. I had it all to myself, but I was never alone in i-t. There was always a guard with -me, -and at nig-h-t only the lights in the half of the -room in whi-ch I w-as sleeping were extinguished."
The constant guard -and lights were -believed to -be precautions -against any of the detainees attempting suicide. The Standard's informant said he was allowed possession of -a safety razor only while shaving in the morning, -and then only with -a guard near. He was allowed to keep his belt -and shoe laces.
"I was taken ou-tside the building for a walk each day, but my only companion was a policeman. Occasionally, I could see other civilians .through my window -taking similar walks under guard. I recognized two of -them, but was unable -to speak to them."
"The adroit questioning" by police was conducted by Inspector Harvison of Montreal, he *said. All questioning by the Royal Commission w-as oon-iucted in the Justice building, to which the Standard informant was taken by police.
He protested strongly against what he described as -the -injustice of holding -a person for weeks without allowing -him to see a lawyer. He said that when he was -arrested he -asked his wife to engage legal counsel but that -the lawyer was -not allowed to see -him.
It was only after the commission had finished questioning him that he was given the opportunity of call-ling in his lawyer, he asserted.
The other clipping is from the Ottawa Evening Citizen of March 6, 1946, but it does not purport to be a report from anyone who had been detained. It is merely a statement made by someone who had been retained as counsel for a person who had been detained. I do not think I should read it to the house as being pertinent to this question.
If I may be permitted to do so, I will table the report with the clippings annexed thereto.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, and in connection with the statement just made by the Minister of Justice, may I point out that the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police made an error in bringing my name in as having been associated with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). At no time have I made, comment upon the detention of these suspects at Rockcliffe, nor have I said anything in connection with it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In fairness to the hon. member, may I say I do bel eve the commissioner made a mistake. So far as my recol-

Canadian Citizenship
lection goes, the only references made were those of the hon. members for Rosetown-Biggar and Calgary West. In both instances they were merely asking for information, which I tried to secure as quickly as I could get it.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the-question as to a reduction in postage rates on gift parcels to the United Kingdom has been raised by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), and by members of the general public. Because this subject is one of general interest, I am making a brief statement at this time.
The present parcel post rates to the United Kingdom are fixed in agreement with that country, and are therefore not entirely under the control of the Canadian Post Office department. They consist of the, actual dost of handling in Canada, conveyance by ship, and the charges which are handed over to the country of destination for delivery costs. For instance, in the case of a gift parcel for the United Kingdom weighing the permissible limit of 11 pounds, and one cubic foot in over-all size, we pay 75 cents for sea conveyance and 90 cents to the United Kingdom, leaving Canada only 40 cents to cover all handling costs here, including rail haul.
Any reduction of these rates Vrould mean in effect a subsidy to the senders. There may well be an objection to this which I present for the consideration of the house. It is that the sending of gift parcels is a matter between individuals on the chance happening of a person overseas having a friend or relative in Canada. Government assistance should, I believe, not be granted on this narrow basis. Rather we should continue as at present to provide relief to those in need through official agencies operating for that purpose.
If the United Kingdom authorities wish to confer the benefit of reduced charges to their own people, we should be happy indeed to pass on to the Canadian mailers the reduced postage rates thus made possible. There has been no such disposition, however, on the part of the United Kingdom postal authorities. Recently when they were approached as to the possibility of accepting less than they now require for the handling of parcel post parcels, they pointed out that their charges are at an absolute minimum, and with rising costs at the present time they might even have to increase the charges which they now require.
63260-9J
A comparison has been made with the rate charged for soldiers' parcels. May I point out that these parcels were handled, from the time of mailing to the time of delivery by the Canadian postal service and the Canadian postal corps. The conditions were, therefore, quite dissimilar to those prevailing in the case of civilian parcels.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, re-specing citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens.
He said: The house will recall that on October 22 last I introduced a similar bill, and asked for first reading. My remarks, in which I set out the purpose and intention behind the bill, are found at page 1335 of Hansard.
The measure to which first reading is now sought, with some slight editorial revisions, including a definition of " domicile," is the same as that introduced last year. On that occasion the definition of "domicile" was left as interpreted in the Immigration Act.
A further provision in the bill now presented to the house is that it affords to members in the armed services the prerequisite of having spent only one year in the country, as a condition to their becoming citizens under this new legislation. So that for all practical purposes under the bill now before the house a member of the armed forces will almost automatically on application, subject to other qualifications, be eligible without going through the residence requirement for admission into Canadian citizenship.
As I stated on a previous occasion, an attempt is now made to give a new definition to Canadian citizenship and to clarify the ambiguity which follows from the Canadian Nationals Act, the Immigration Act and the Naturalization Act. The underlying purposes of the bill are really two: first, to achieve a clear and simple definition of Canadian citizenship which will remove the complexities which exist in the present legislation and, second, to provide an underlying community of status for all our people in this country that will help to bind them together as [DOT] Canadians.
Mr. CHURCH:: That is a nice bill for an Ontario minister to introduce at a time like this when coal and houses are needed. It will lead to wide disunity.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
132	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. 0. PROBE (Regina City):	Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction, of which I gave notice a couple of hours ago. Will he please inform the house if it is the intention of Wartime Housing Limited1 to extend its present programme of temporary housing for veterans in Regina beyond the number of 300 units announced 'last year? If it is intended to go beyond this number, what is the projected allotment for Regina for 1946?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: I received notice of this question and I communicated with Wartime Housing Limited and found that Wartime Housing Limited had bad no communication from the city of Regina since last August. If an application comes through the official channels from the city to the department, Wartime Housing and the department will be glad to give consideration to its contents.



INQUIRY AS TO SAVING-FATS CAMPAIGN TO RELIEVE

[Stage Direction]
United kingdom shortage
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like 'to direct a question 'to the Minister of Finance. Will the government initiate a save-the-fat campaign as the United States has done, to help relieve the serious shortage of fats in the United Kingdom.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) :: The question should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture, who has charge of this campaign.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I thought it had to do with Mr. Donald Gordon's branch.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Will the minister direct the question to the Minister of Agriculture?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.



SPREADING OF PAYMENTS FOR DELIVERIES- INCOME T.AX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mi.
Speaker, there is a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) based on 'bis statement yester-

day requesting increased deliveries of wheat from the farms of western Canada. Will the minister give consideration to giving the farmer the option of spreading payments for such deliveries for income tax purposes over the years in which he may have crop failures? As the minister is not in his place, this question might serve as a notice and could possibly be answered to-morrow.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 20, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. E. O. BERTRAND (Prescott):: 
An hon. MEMBER:: At whose expense?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: And if we ask who is responsible for this state of things, I would say credit is to be given to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has so well administered the department during the time he has been in charge of it.
In closing I would refer again to what I said yesterday with regard to the leader of the Liberal party, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). Canada is indeed fortunate to have at the helm at the present

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
time the present Prime Minister-fortunate both in its domestic affairs and in its international ramifications.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall come to the criticism after a while. I was saying that I am not here to criticize the need of Canada to prepare for markets in Europe and elsewhere and to aid Britain during her dark days and reward her in part for what she did for us when she saved civilization. The farmer believes, properly I think, that if Canada intends to advertise, if Canada's government intends to secure markets abroad, then it should be done at the expense of the Canadian people and not at the expense of the farmers who produce the wheat.
One problem which faces the country was accentuated the other day when I visited Chatham; I refer to the necessity of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) doing something immediately to assure the necessary labour supply for the Canadian farmer.


Mr. MITCHELL:: That is something you should look after. You may be on the farm yourself.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that there is never any fear of the genial Minister of Labour moving anybody around like that if the record of the past is to be any augury of what will happen in the future. When i was in Chatham I found that many of the farmers had been on sugar beet production, others on vegetable production. But these farmers, by reason of the failure of the government to face this situa-
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker

tion acud to assure them the necessary labour supplies, are unable to determine what to do this summer. While the minister says that things will be bad for some of us in the future, the farmers in the county of Kent and in the part of Ontario to which I refer, are asking that a decision be made now, not on April 1 or April 15 or later, because, notwithstanding all the unemployment in the country, it seems impossible now to secure men who will return to the farm and assist in that kind of work.
What I am about to say applies p&rticularlj'' to western Canada. During the war a tax of three cents a gallon was imposed on gasoline with a view to discouraging its use. This tax added to the cost of the farmers' production. Why was it not removed immediately upon the conclusion of the war? Instead of the tax being removed, permission was given to the great western oil corporations outside the city of Winnipeg to increase their prices by two cents a gallon, effective during the present months.
I represent a rural constituency. I visited farmers everywhere in that constituency during the recess and I find they are willing to work in order to meet the challenge that faces the world. But, as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said, unless they are assured that longer hours will not penalize them in income tax, the production that is asked for now will not be obtained. If the government will not consider it proper to provide a real inducement in the form of relief from income tax for the extra production, what must be done is to increase the income tax exemption to the extent of $2,000 for married persons and $1,200 for single persons. In the second place, I suggest that while a great deal of wheat has been sold1 at $1.55 a bushel, the farmer should be given the reasonable price of $1.80 for every bushel of wheat sold since August 1, 1945, to the end that, by means of that encouragement, the production we ask for will be forthcoming.
The farmer is most insistent that he be given assurance of a market, and that he be given equality for agriculture, to use the expression of my leader; that by means of a well organized programme he be given security in prices several years ahead. I suggest that even at this time the government should turn its attention to these two matters-first, the provision of labour, not a month or six weeks from now, but immediately; and second, that the government give some hope to the farmer and to the other 
citizens of Canada of some relief from high income tax through an increase in the amount of exemption.
Having dealt cursorily with these two questions I come now' to the spy situation. I do not think there is any place better fitted for the discussion of this subject than the parliament of Canada, which, if it is to discharge its responsibilities, must be the bulwark of the liberties of the Canadian people. I am going to ask my hon. friends in all parts of the house to listen to the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, delivered in the House of Commons on March 19, 1918, words which I can never hope to emulate, setting forth the responsibilities of members of parliament in the determination, and in the securing and maintenance, of those rights which are dearer to no one than they are to people of British birth, dearer than life itself. Sir Wilfrid used these words:
Eternal vigilance is the price of- liberty, and the universal testimony of history is that unless *there is eternal vigilance on the part of a strong and resolute opposition-, encroachments upon freedom and abuses in office will creep in, just as surely and just as certainly as weeds and tares will invade and choke the crops of the husbandman if he is not constantly on v'ateh. Nay, more, I think I can invoke also the testimony of the history of British institutions to show that -if at any time there is on the part of some section of the opposition a relaxation in vigilance, weeds -and tares -at once appear in luxurious growth.
These are pertinent words, having regard to the encroachments that have taken place, during the period of the war, upon the rights of parliament:
Nothing, sir, is more certain than that one illegality will lead to another; that, -as a logical consequence, wrong will he followed by wrong.
I have no apologies to offer for the position I intend to take. I have no apology to make for not having received support from the communist party. No member on this side of the house has ever at any time received the official approval of the leader of the Labour Progressive party, nor has any member on this side of the house ever taken the position that the director of the national Liberal federation took when on June 24, 1944, Mr. Tim Buck offered cooperation to the Prime Minister. In offering that cooperation and that assistance, he was answered by Mr. McLean in these words:
The Liberal party welcomes cooperation from everyone in. Canada in putting -into effect Liberal principles and policies


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: No matter what the cost to the nation.

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
Mr. DIEFENBAKER-
-because we are sure that these policies are the only real answer to the problems which face Canada and the whole world and to the problems which will face us in the future.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to note the approval. The cooperation was cooperation during the period of the elections. There was none of that cooperation with communism on this side of the house. I realize too the position of Russia, to-day-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: We are here,
though.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are on this side.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes. There is the policy; the end justifies the means.


James Arthur Ross: At any cost to the nation.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: He spoke out of turn.


John George Diefenbaker: It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that there should be so many interruptions in connection with a proposition as to which there is such universal agreement.
I was saying that I think I realize the situation in the world to-day. Stalin spoke on February 9; Kalinin spoke on February 4; Molotov spoke on February 4. They set forth the plan; and, according to the royal commissioners, here in Canada were men and women in the civil service wdio put their loyalty to a foreign ideology above their loyalty to the state. Anyone who runs may read the picture in the world to-day: Great Britain to get out of Greece so that the bases in the Dardanelles will be available; the U.S.S.R. demanding Tripolitania by way of trusteeship; the U.S.S.R. to-day in Iran;
U.S.S.R. asking for bases in Eritrea; the U.S.i, R. asking for the Kars plateau. It is a pictu. [DOT]* anyone can see; and the empire is not altogether guiltless when we allowed the U.S.S.R. to secure control over the Kurile islands, joint ownership or control of the Manchurian railway, the port of Darien and the port of Port Arthur, under the agreement at Yalta. tThese things exist; but, these things being recognized, and that spirit of communism spreading all over the world being known, it was passing strange for the Prime Minister to say he did not believe that Marshal Stalin knew anything about what was going on in this country.
I have no sympathy, sir, with those who would undermine their country in time of war or in time of peace. They are entitled 63260-10
to no sympathy, but they are entitled to be tried by law and not by administrative lawlessness. And let me say this. The Minister of Justice says the safety of the state is in danger. Nowhere in the orders in council does it say that, either in October or in February. It says, "it may be inimical" and all through Canada the press has taken the stand that the responsibility must rest with the government to prove to Canada that the destruction of these inalienable rights of British subjects is justified on the ground that there is in existence in this country a situation which would undermine the state and destroy our safety. It is well, too, to remember that as yet no one has explained the appointments made by this government. No one as yet has given an explanation as to why a Doukhobor woman from the constituency of Prince Albert, with a philosophy inimical to our philosophy, should come to Ottawa and find her way into the Department of External Affairs, where she would acquire a knowledge of our secret ciphers.
I might add that never in the long history of the British commonwealth has the "safety of the state" been defined as other than existed during a period of war, rebellion or insurrection. The minister says these are dangerous men and women. The authorities did nothing from September 5, 1945, to February, 1946; then they picked up these dangerous people and kept them ineomimfnicado for a period of time. Later these dangerous people were released on bail in trifling amounts which ordinarily would indicate the commission of no serious offence, and the probability of acquittal. If they were dangerous in January or February, are they not dangerous to-day? If they had to be kept under detention for that period, what has happened since to alter the picture? I say, Mr. Speaker- and it is not doctrinaire or a technicality- to say that these orders in council sweep aside Magna Charta, habeas corpus and the bill of rights. Some say the people of Canada are not interested in that. Sir, I do not believe the minds of liberty-loving Canadians, however much they hate communism, have become so apathetic in six years of domination by the state in a period when the political doctrines of regimentation inculcated by one party and practised by the other, have been in effect. I believe the time has come for a declaration of liberties to be made by this parliament. Magna Charta is part of our birthright. Habeas corpus, the bill of rights, the petition of right, all are part of our tradition. The United States has its own bill of rights, and I think out of the events of the last few years a responsibility falls upon parliament

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker

to assure that Canadians, as well as others in the empire and the people of the United States, should have established by their legislature a bill of rights under which freedom of religion, of speech, of association and of speech, freedom from capricious arrest and freedom under the rule of the law, should be made part and parcel of the law of the country.
During the period1 of the war of necessity parliament became a casualty of the war. We admitted that democratic symbolism and the leisurely processes of democracy had no place having regard to the tempo of modern warfare We voluntarily abrogated the rights of parliament and the rights of the individual, but I ask. the Minister of Justice to let us know his answer to this. If during the days of war he did not have the power he has under these orders in council, why was it necessary to apply to individuals in time of peace rules and regulations which were never applied in time of war? Section 21 of the defence of Canada regulations, which has been repealed by order in council, gave power to pick up aliens and enemies of the state during the period of the war. It gave the power of detention, but not the power of examination. Is this democratic symbolism? I defy the government to produce a case where during war, insurrection or rebellion when any British government acted not only to detain but to examine. As I look at what is taking place and what has taken place in recent years, this is what I am afraid of. Parliament abdicated many of its rights during the war, and to-day the government is endeavouring to perpetuate this temporary abdication. We placed our rights in pavra during the war as security for victory. To-day we are asking that those rights be restored to us and that parliament be assured of the prestige to which it is entitled by reason of our democratic development and the heritage that is ours.
This, as I see it, is the trend. From 1939 on, the government has arrogated to itself powers which ordinarily reside with parliament and the people. Indeed, during the period of the war there were the defence of Canada regulations; the present order in council goes much farther than the defence of Canada regulations did.
There has been an attitude on the part of the government denying us information. There was the philosophy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) that the executive had no responsibility to parliament, the very antithesis of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had so often reiterated in the house.


Mr. CLAXTON:: The Minister of Finance did not say that.
IMr. Diefenbaker.]


John George Diefenbaker: And here is a strange thing: The minister says that on December 6, 1945, he did not remember this order in council of September, 1945 that swept aside Magna Charta and the bill of rights. He forgot itl Well, I accept his denial that he knew at the time of the existence of this order. But, sir, is it not an indication of what power will do to men, what it will do to a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, one who had stood for the safeguarding of the rights of parliament and the individual, that he should forget an order in council which did more to sweep aside the rights of individuals than has any other order in council passed in the history of Canada?
Parliament would never have passed the emergency transitional powers bill had it known about this order. But he forgot about that secret order! I wonder how many other secret orders the Minister of Justice has forgotten. How many other secret orders are there about which we know nothing to-day? I ask that question again, as I did on December 6.
Where is the rule of law? It is flouted by the government. First it is flouted by denial in many statutes and orders in council of recourse to the courts. True, most of those orders in council were connected with military needs. Why is recourse to the courts denied under certain legislation, such as that connected with the income tax and the excess profits tax, and a fundamental principle of justice, that a man may not be a judge in his own case, daily forfeited, to the detriment of business and of individuals across Canada?
Why does this government, which always asserted while in opposition that it is the custodian of the liberty of the individual, and yet denies to that individual the right of recourse to the courts-a principle of British justice since Magna Charta, which states, "To no man will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."
When, in the history of the British empire, was any man ever denied counsel, except under orders in council passed by this government? Why deny counsel when an individual is brought in for examination? According to the statement read by the minister to-day there was no coercion. And, by the way, it was interesting to note that the Minister of Justice departed from his legal training to the extent of reading ex 'parte statements in a newspaper in order to support the answer he was gviing the' hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Will the hon. member allow me to make a correction? I was not

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
defending or supporting anything. I was indicating to the house the information I got from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which I had promised to get at the request of two members of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, imagine the Minister of Justice giving information to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as to wrhat the commissioner had read in the Montreal Standard, and then asking parliament to accept that as an answer!
You say I overdraw the story? What did parliament do a few short months ago in connection with a bill respecting emergency powers? Under the emergency powers bill, on October 5, 1945 the government endeavoured by order in council to get power to deport and to exclude Canadian citizens, or to revoke nationality. Parliament continued to sit until December 18. It would not accept the reactionary principle that a British subject could be deported at the will of the government of the day. Parliament, as represented by hon. members in all parts of the house, took the stand that such intolerance would destroy a nation. Parliament spoke on that occasion in words which could be understood by the government. Parliament pointed out that to deport Canadian citizens was the very antithesis of the principles of democracy, one of the first of which is that minorities are entitled to protection.
What did the government do? It could not get that iniquitous piece of legislation through parliament; so, while parliament sat, on December 15, 1945, the governor in council passed an order in council to do that which parliament would not allow it to do between October 5 and December 15, 1945.
There is the picture, as I see it. I cannot cover the various other infractions and invasions of democratic rights by the executive. I come back to the orders in council themselves, and I ask this: Having regard to the seriousness of the situation, why did the government let that order in council lie dormant from September to February? If it is so dangerous to-day to have individuals connected with the U.S.S.R. in this country undermining our state-and admitting it is-what was the justification for the government's allowing a Russian officer, Major Peter Domishev, to go to Churchill on the Musk Ox expedition, and there to take pictures of our equipment which will be used in the north country in the event of war's ever coming to this land? What is the justification for it? Surely not a fear of difficulties which in the event of refusal might arise between Canada and another nation, be-63260-10J
cause Canada and every other part of the empire is denied the same privilege in that country.
The only justification for these orders-in-council the government offers is that conditions are serious, and that it is done for the safety of the state. Sir, my answer to that is the answer I gave a while ago: detaining and questioning in this fashion has never been resorted to anywhere in this Empire before. I should like to know what would have happened in Great Britain, in the mother of parliaments, if the same condition had arisen. There, according to the Minister of Justice, one of the major wrongdoers, one of the alleged leaders, was not locked up for detention and examination. He was proceeded against by law and legal processes. After he had appeared in court, represented by counsel, he was denied bail, because invariably bail is denied when an individual may not appear for trial, or where it may be considered dangerous to allow him to be at large. Why was not the same practice adopted in this country? What difference was there here from the condition which prevails in Great Biitain. I suggest again that I have no sympathy for these people. I know none of their and never have. But are we not travelling along the trail which during the war was used and reused with an utter lack of protest on the part of parliament? This trail is becoming a highway along which the government moves, totally regardless of parliament.
The Minister of Finance said in a speech last fall that parliament's duty was not to scrutinize everything; it was to vote supply. That is the position that the government is coming to. It has taken away the right of the individual to have access to the courts. It has widened the defence of Canada regulations to the point where you say to the individual; Not only will you be detained to protect yourself and protect the country, but while you are detained you shall be examined; Is it not passing strange that these people are detained until such time as they say something which implicates them? They are then granted the right to have counsel; they are then permitted to face their trial. They are granted opportunity of freedom once they confess. When that happens they are withdrawn from the custody of the crown, from this so-called passive internment, and again have the opportunity to be at large.
As I said before, it is the first time in history that this has happened. Again I say that I have no sympathy for communists, but the great danger in the road taken is that if this becomes a precedent it may lead to
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker

caprice and personal animosity being the guide to prosecution of those who have different political views. These orders-in-council provide the government with a means whereby it may translate suspicions into proof by surveillance and the coercion of confinement.
My friend over there says that it works, that the end justifies the means. I have taken the trouble to look up the history of habeas corpus, and the more I have gone into it the more strongly I am convinced that the great and abiding principle of British law all through the ages has been a scrupulous regard for liberty. It was so even in the darkest days. To set aside those rights is to deny the foundation of British liberty. It works. The star chamber worked. It was efficient; it got convictions. There were outstanding judges at the head of the star chamber. But as McKeehnie says in his work on the Magna Charta, that writ is the principal bulwark of English liberty, and should the doubtful plea of political necessity lead men to look on its denial with apathy, the most distinguishing characteristic of our constitution will be effaced.
The orders in council provide a short-cut method, and so did the star chamber method. Maitland sums it up 'by saying that the star chamber probably succeeded, but it was none the less sinister. It too was composed of great jurists, but it became a court of inquiry, not a court of judges administering the law. Public opinion must be mobilized by knowledge against this practice. How apologetic the Minister of Justice was when he dealt with this matter; and I think the same thing can be said of the Prime Minister. Yes, it has been done before; parliament has been criticized before. None was more critical in the days before the war than the right hon. the Prime Minister. It may be said that to take a stand like this is not popular, but I assert that it is a member's responsibility to take a firm stand when he sees freedom being interfered with; when he sees such things as religious freedom being interfered with as it is when these Jehovah's Witnesses are still kept in alternate work; when he sees interference with the freedom of the press as was the case when certain photographers were advised that unless they delivered up their films they would be subject to arrest. When one sees that trend, when one sees bureaucracy not responsible to parliament, then the time has come when members in all parts of this house should rise and say that freedom and liberty are the concepts for which parliament must stand, that they will not permit the adoption by the executive of totalitarian

methods; that British methods have worked through the ages and British methods will work to-day.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, along with many other hon. members who have already spoken, I want to congratulate the two hon. members across the floor who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Having done that, may I say that while I have taken part in many debates, I begin to feel a little nervous in taking part in this one. Since it has opened the discussion has taken us over a lot of territory. We have been chased by the police, taken into court, put into gaol, let out again on bail, taken over to Russia and also to several different parts of this country. It is therefore not without some diffidence that I rise to address the house.
I intend to speak in support of giving everybody in this country an equal opportunity, which is the first duty of government. I intend to base my submission, first, on a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King); secopd, on a statement of a former prime minister of Great Britain, and, third, on a statement of a business man in the United States. We can never attain the golden age of economic life while we are in the stone age of economic thought. I believe many of us are still in that stone age, and until we get out of it there is not much hope for the common man. Speaking in New York, on December 2, 1942, to the Pilgrims of America, the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
The only path to prosperity and peace is the path of equality of cooperation and of human brotherhood. The new order must be a world order. It must be governed by a universal rule of law. It m-ust be based on human rights and not on the rights of property, privilege or position. An end must be put to monopoly of power by any country and by any class.
That was reported in the Edmonton Bulletin of December 3, 1942. We have heard the Prime Minister tell us that we must have reform before the war is over, otherwise it will be too late. Late in December, 1940, former prime minister Churchill had this to say in London:
When the war is won, as it surely will be, it must be one of our 'aims to establish a state of society where the advantages and privileges which hitherto have been enjoyed by only the few shall be far more' widely shared by the men and youth of the nation as a whole.
I should like now to quote what a citizen of the United States said, Jesse F. Jones, a wealthy American who was formerly chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. He said:

The Address-Mr. Fair
These United States have been good to ns. We have made money, we have nice homes, wear good clothes, have fine cars and can afford banquets like .this one. We can look back fifty years when most of us started and chart the courses that followed. But we can't 'look ahead that far and see where we are going.
But there are some things we know about the future. One of them is that the days of making great fortunes are over. That is finished. Another is that the upper third, you and I, have got to have a more public-minded viewpoint. We must realize that the welfare and well-being of the lower third is our problem. We are as much of society as the fellow on the other side of .the tracks.
Many of us are wondering whether it is possible to have equality of opportunity until a thorough job of housecleaning is done in all departments of government and all other public institutions, where infiltrations of doctrines detrimental to our democratic way of life are to be found regardless of the label under which they operate.
Having laid that down as a basis I propose to say a few words about the millions of hungry people in other parts of the world. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister make his pronouncement on Sunday night last; and right here, may I say that I followed his injunction and went to church on Sunday, as is my regular practice, and I was wondering whether the Prime Minister used his Sunday morning in preparing his pronouncement of Sunday evening, or whether he went to church himself. His Sunday night speech was very good, and I am sure the farmers all over Canada received it in the proper spirit. I think you will all realize that farmers are necessary people at certain times, particularly when you want something to eat, and when there are taxes to be paid; whether they be exacted directly or indirectly makes no difference.
Speaking of cooperation, the farmers of Canada have had a lot of it in the past in the way of flowery speeches, but this time they demand cooperation in cash, not in credit or in words.
I should like to quote two paragraphs from the speech from the throne with which I propose to deal specifically:
Of world * problems demanding immediate action, the most pressing is 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. Unless the need is met, grave disorders, endangering peace itself, must fee anticipated.
The government is seeking by all practicable means to make available for export the maximum supply of foodstuffs. Every encouragement is being given .to increasing production.
The gravity of the situation demands, on the part of the people of Canada, -a united and wholehearted effort.
These words are clear and definite. I do not think anyone can accuse the farmers in any part of Canada of sitting back during the war years and not pulling their full weight in production. I cannot speak particularly for other parts of Canada, but I do know that in western Canada tractors were working night and day at certain seasons of the year on the farm; you could see tractor lights in the fields any night you were driving along the roads. For this the farmers deserve great consideration, The result of these long hours of work, about which we did not complain, after our able-bodied men and women had been sent into the services or into the civil service here or into munitions factories, leaving at home to work the farm men and women long past the age for such work as well as the young men who were physically unfit for the armed services, was that the farmers produced on a scale higher than they had ever reached before. I am not going to give all the credit for this to the policies laid down by the present government. It will be remembered that some years ago the Kaiser used to use the phrase ''Meinself-und Gott," and if we take into consideration the bounteous crops provided by Divine Providence during the war years, I think we would be hitting much closer to the mark.
Many of the farmers took the advice of the government; that is, they let it in one ear and out the other because they say that if you want to be a successful farmer you must do exactly the opposite of what the government advocates. In my own case I did not change my farming programme, and I do not intend to do so in the future, because if you are going to be a success on the farm you have to lay down your own programme, make sure it is a sound one, and then stay with it. If you are going to change according to every whim or faficy advocated by people who do not know anything about farming, you are not going to get very far beyond taking a walk down the road and letting somebody else have your farm. I do not think it would be fair to the government to deal with agricultural policy and the fate of agriculture prior to the time this government came into office. Let us take its wheat programme, starting with the 1935-36 crop.
It will be remembered that at that time we had an initial payment on our No. 1 Northern wheat at Fort William of 87i cents a bushel, and in addition we had participation certificates on which we were supposed to realize cash when the crop was all sold. That
The Address-Mr. Fair

continued for some time without prices getting any better; in fact, the price went down to 80 cents and then 70 cents a bushel, and at one time legislation was introduced to make 60 cents the initial payment on our wheat f.o.b. Fort William. The farmers of Canada did not like that. Perhaps it was done intentionally by the government so that the farmers would be thankful when the price was brought up ten cents a bushel through legislation passed in this house providing for an initial payment of 70 cents a bushel. That lasted until August 1, 1942. During this period, although we were getting a very low price for our wheat, we found that the prices of the things we had to buy were going up and up, and little attempt was made to check those increases. In addition, to taking the low price, because nature was good to Canada we were compelled to deliver on a quota basis. The farmers of Canada had no particular objection to that. They knew that a lot of our grain could not be used, and on one or two occasions we were paid some storage on the farms. But to most of us it was a case of buying lumber at highly inflated prices, building granaries and storing the wheat on the farms. Some of the wheat grown in the early years of the war still remains on some farms. On August 1, 1942, we had an increase to 90 cents a bushel. That served to compensate to a very small extent for the low prices which prevailed before that time. In 1943 the price was increased to $1.25, and in 1944 the quota was removed and we were allowed to deliver all the wheat we wanted to. In 1942, as I think we all remember, drastic changes were made in the income tax programme, and as a result farmers and others were compelled to pay income tax on income, in the case of a single man, above $660, and of a married man $1,200. There were some exceptions with which I will not bother at the present time.
In 1944, when quotas were removed, many people were carrying heavy loads of debt and paying thousands of dollars in interest, and they thought to themselves, "Here is my chance to get rid of my grain and pay off my debts." As a result many of them emptied and swept out their grain bins and felt that they were getting well away. Farmers, I may say, have at all times done their best to pay their debts, and on this occasion, having been compelled to pay interest on their debts and hold low-priced grain in high-priced bins, they took advantage of this opening of the quota and the increased price. In 1944 the war was still on, and farmers did not know at that time that they would be chased and compelled to pay income tax. But a short time ago, at the time of the Christmas and New

Year holidays, the farmers, at any rate around my part of the country, got some mail which was not very welcome. Letters were sent out containing income tax forms for the year 1944. Many of the farmers are still feeling pretty bad and pretty mad. Some of them stayed up at night trying to figure out their income tax. Thousands of them had not kept any track of their receipts or expenditures, and as a result they spent night after night trying to compute the tax as nearly as they could. In contrast to this, no effort was made by the government to visit the farmers in the depression years and find out what the losses were and try to compensate them or ease their interest rates, cut their debts or do other things of the kind. But after we had reaped, in ' 1944, one of the heaviest crops Canada ever produced, and in adidtion had delivered Surpluses which had been piled up as far back as 1940, the government came along and says in effect, "The war is over, we need money; and if the farmer has no extra money perhaps he will be easier to deal with." So they demanded their pound of flesh.
This is made the worse because farmers realize that in the past there was only one period, namely between 1915 and 1919, when the farmers of this country received their proper share of the national income-that is, about 33 per cent. In the depression years many of the farmers lost their farms and their health as well. During the war years I know of some cases-perhaps there were many-in which the farmer's wife got out and worked putting up hay, harvesting, and doing other farm work, and possibly a year later found herself in hospital undergoing an operation and paying doctor bills. This is not right. ' Something should be done to make conditions on the farm such that the farmer's wife and daughter will not have to go out and do farm work. But the help was not obtainable and the farmer's wife and daughter got out and did it, and they are still suffering as a result. Those who held on to the farms are still, even to-day, trying to pay off their debts and to meet the load of interest which in many cases runs up to 7 and 8 per cent. Why that is I do not know, because in many cases the amount on which the interest is paid is nothing but a book entry. This should not be allowed.
Farmers also are aware of the losses they have taken on grain in the past. A few years ago, at the time the price of wheat was raised to 90 cents per bushel, I took the trouble to figure out the number of bushels which were marketed between the 1935-36 and 1942-43 crop years, on the basis of the price obtained for it, and also what the farmer should have

The Address-Mr. Fair
received had the grain been sold at what has been called parity price, $1.41 per bushel. I might say that this parity is figured on the basis of farmers receiving 16-6 per cent of the national income, when they were really entitled to double that amount. According to the amount I arrived at, during that eight year period the farmers of Canada sustained on wheat alone a loss of $1,220 million. That sum would pay off a lot of farm debt and provide for homes, better equipment, better machinery and other improvements. But it has gone as a direct contribution to the life of Canada, for which the farmer has absolutely no credit.
Let me go back a few years. I am not accusing the present government with respect to these conditions; I am taking the period 1930-40. I find that the farmers during that period received a yearly average 9-4 per cent of the national income. If you include a few of the good years by taking the period 1926-40, you find that during that time the farmers received 11-3 per cent of the national income. In other words, approximately 33 per cent of the population of Canada had to be content with and get along on 11-3 per cent of the national income. If we take that wonderful year at the depth of the depression-1932-the farmers of Canada received five per cent of the national income. I think it is about time this government did something about it, and about time too that those of us here who represent agriculture and all other national interests got on our feet and made a demand, not a suggestion, that something be done about this matter right away.
In view of present taxation and price inequalities, what is the attitude of the farmer towards greater production? I have tried to point out the conditions under which farmers have worked during past years. All of you know what the present taxation programme is. The married rr\an, including the farmer, is supposed to be allowed an exemption of $1,200. Take for instance the man who gets $1,200 out of his grain and cattle or -whatever else he may sell, and in the past has undertaken to raise hogs. Probably the average small farmer will raise about sixty hogs. He takes those sixty hogs and sells them at $25 apiece, and when he comes to settle with the income tax collector he finds that he has to turn over the proceeds of the sale of twenty hogs, or one-third of his production, to satisfy the income tax demand, simply because he has worked many extra hours on production. In many cases he has had his tractor going twenty-four hours a day. And that is the thanks the farmer gets.
One of my neighbours visited me shortly before I came here and said he was worried about his income tax. He is a man I have known for over thirty years, and he has worked all that time for farm machine companies' and mortgage companies. In 1944, however, like many others, he took advantage of the quota on wheat and sold all the wheat he had in his bins using practically every cent of the money to pay off mortgages and machine company debts. Now he is faced with the problem of paying income tax on that. I couple of days before I left home he said to me, "Do something about this income tax in Ottawa, because I have to mortgage my land again in order to get enough money to pay the 1944 tax." That is the way in which the tax and price system operates to-day.
Some time ago we had an announcement that our wheat would be sold for export purposes at $1.55. I strongly protested against that. I do not want anyone to get the impression that I am not in favour of Canada giving wheat, at a good price, to Britain and other starving countries, but I do object to the farmers of Canada paying for the gift of the Canadian people. It is the gift of the Canadian people and the expense should certainly be borne by the Canadian people.
We were told that our wheat for export purposes would be sold at $1.55, but to make up for that we were also told that for the next four crop years our wheat would not be sold below $1 a bushel, f.o.b. Fort William. To the farmer in my part of the country that means 75 cents a bushel at the farm, and that is not nearly the price of wheat under present conditions. This again is government policy. Perhaps the government wants to get thanks from other countries; but again, as I said before, if it wants to get the cooperation of the farmer the government must pay in cash and not in credit or in flowery speeches.
It was announced yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the initial payment on this year's crop would be $1.25 a bushel. Under present conditions I am requesting, in fact demanding, of the government that they make that initial price $1.50, with participation certificates. World conditions to-day justify that price, and if there is to be a subsidy then it is the Canadian government's job, or the job of the people of Canada. Do not however continue to have the farmer make these gifts to other countries and bear all the cost himself. We are willing to produce the goods, and it is up to the government and the people of

during the week; on Sunday the mother goes home and does the housework, the house cleaning and the washing and so on, and goes back to the hotel Monday morning. This man has applied for old age pension, but because he has not been in Canada the full twenty years his application has been denied. I am not blaming any of the authorities; I am blaming the members of the House of Commons. It is our responsibility. Here we have in our midst a man who is not getting proper nourishment. I am not going into any further details, but this is only one of many cases I could relate.
We have too much food here; we cannot distribute it simply because man-made laws passed twenty years ago stand in the way. I wonder what is the matter with us. Are we all still in the stone age of economic thought? I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to insist with me that these conditions must be changed so that our bounteous production may be made available to the people of Canada, and to the world after our own wants are supplied. There is a way, by which no man will be made poorer but by which the poor will be made richer. Let us adopt it.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is understandable that some hon. members sitting behind the leader of the opposition feel that the housing problem could be solved, just like that- simply by marking one's ballot on election day, and by replacing one government with another holding exactly the same views.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Let me remind the house that the leader of the opposition for twenty years was premier of Manitoba. However, he did not say the other day that much had been done during those twenty years to improve the housing situation in that province. From the dome of the legislative builds ings in Winnipeg it is possible to see some of the most disgraceful slums in Canada. I am not suggesting that slum conditions there are worse than anywhere else; but I have some pictures which disclose a pretty ugly housing condition in that city. Let the leader of the opposition tell us one thing that was undertaken to solve the housing problem of Manitoba during the term as premier. In Manitoba they have an abundance of cement and lumber, and they have a vigorous climate. They have all the factors that should result in the government on the provincial level facing up to the problem and providing some decent houses. My hon. friend suggests that the situation has grown worse, but I can show the house pictures of houses that have been occupied for some fifty years. They were occupied during the time the leader of the opposition was premier of Manitoba.
I do not wish to spend any more time in criticizing the government for what has been done. I think all hon. members will agree that this government must face up immediately to this problem and demonstrate to our people that we can do in peacetime the sort of thing we did in war time when we broke the bottle-necks that existed, when we established new records of achievement in every field of production.
I think the first thing we must recognize is that we shall have to have some plan. We shall have to work out some technique so that the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government can participate. We have used the British North
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

America Act to pass responsibility from one authority to another. The result is that at the moment no level of government is taking the right type of action.	.
Thousands of our young people fought to save their homes. They have returned, and where are those homes that they fought to save? They cannot be found in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Ottawa or in any city of Canada If you do not believe me go to the reading room and check the want ad section of the daily papers from coast to coast. You will find pathetic appeals by ex-service men and their wives who want living quarters. They would be satisfied with anything. Even though rewards are offered, housing is apparently not available. So that the first job is to have the federal authorities take the initiative of bringing the provinces and municipalities together to sit around a conference table and decide on a technique that will result in houses being built. We solved many complex problems during the war, and it should be possible to work out the necessary details in order to set up the administrative machinery and get action at all levels of government.
In the meantime I should like to suggest a programme which I think is feasible, a thirteen point programme. We have had many programmes containing different numbers of points offered, but I think this thirteen point programme in connection with housing should be launched immediately. My first point is that we should stop the unnecessary export of building materials. I followed with interest the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe). He did not seem greatly concerned about the large export of Canadian lumber. I am sure that all Canadians are anxious that some of our lumber should go to rebuild Great Britain and war-tom Europe, but I would remind the house that that is not where the bulk of our lumber is going.
During the Christmas recess I visited California and I saw a great many houses under construction. Some of our finest Canadian lumber was being used. I am most anxious that we retain friendly trading relations with our good neighbour, but with our housing situation so acute I do not think our neighbours to the south would expect us to deny our people necessary shelter while Canadian lumber is being used for luxury building in the United States. I saw a great many houses under construction, but I do not think any of those being built would cost less than $10,000. Perhaps it is no business of ours what type of houses are being built in the United States, but surely it is a matter of

concern as to how much of our lumber is being exported and how much we are retaining for ourselves. The Monetary Times in a recent number contained a statement by the timber controller, as follows:
"No change has occurred in the quantities that will be allowed for export," explained Canada's timber controller, D. D. Rosenberry. "The only difference is that .producers now may ship that portion of their lumber to the countries of their choice."
In the. United States less attention is paid to price ceilings than in Canada or Great Britain, and the result is that higher bidders will take all the lumber we wish to ship and the companies shipping lumber in this country can select the country to which they wish to ship. I notice in the same article that W. J. LeClair, secretary-manager of the Canadian lumbermen's association, says:
If control were removed-within forty-eight hours we would not have one thousand feet .in this country remaining in our possesion-legally and financially speaking.
Surely it should be the concern of this government and our people that sufficient lumber should be retained here to do the job of building decent -houses for our people.
My second point is that we should prohibit deferable and non-essential building and stock-pile materials for housing construction.
Third, all building supplies in short supply should be rationed, giving top priority to housing costing under $5,000 per unit. Fourth, we should expand the .producfion of materials to meet an objective of 100,000 housing units in 1946: This would provide employment for at least 250,000 workmen and would cost approximately the same as our aircraft production programme of 1944. I realize the difficulties that would be encountered, but wihen we consider our performance in the field of [DOT] shipbuilding, aircraft production, tank production and so on, the building of 100,000 housing units in 1946 should be play compared with the difficult assignment carried out during the war.
Fifth, we should exercise better price control of building supplies and equipment until we make sure that there is enough material for all our people. In the United States congress there is now in committee stage a bill providing for ceilings on both old and new houses. In the original bill there was provision for $600,000,000 in the form of subsidies to keep prices within the reach of people who most urgently require accommodation.
My sixth point is that crown compaines should be set up to break the bottle-necks created by monopoly industry. As the Minis- [DOT] ter of Reconstruction told us yesterday, lumber

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
is not the greatest problem. We are short of plumbing supplies, electrical appliances, building boards and other' materials. During the war the government of this country found it necessary to establish crown companies when private concerns were unable or unwilling to do the job. The building of houses is a most important job for us now, and certainly some of the crown companies should be reorganized to produce materials in short supply.
My seventh point is that we should ensure the training of workers in the needed building skills. Again we take our pattern from the war years. We trained inexperienced young men and women from farms, towns and villages in welding, rivetting and all the essential jobs in our war industries. We now have a similar challenge, and our inexperienced people should be trained in the arts of house building.
My eighth point deals with the labour problem that would arise. Naturally men in the building trades would be concerned if large numbers were to come into the building trades on a temporary basis. We should enlist the cooperation of the men in the building trades by -assuring them that Canada is prepared1 to embark on a long-term extensive building programme. The Prime Minister referred to New Zealand. I have not forgotten the speech that the Hon. Walter Nash made when he was here during the early months of the war. Mr. Nash outlined the objectives of the Labour government of New Zealand in the field of housing and said it was their goal that every family should have a plot of land on which they could raise flowers -and vegetables, that every family should have a separate housing unit and that every individual should have a room where he could close the door and say: "This is my room; this is where my books and papers will be left, and when I return they will be exactly as I left them." Such a programme has never been enunciated or accepted by any government in Canada. We certainly -have done very little to see that that sort of ideal should be placed before the Canadian people. But if this government was prepared to say that Canada will use Canadian materials and Canadian working men to carry out such a programme, all the men in the building trades would be assured of full- employment on a yearly basis for an indefinite period.
My ninth point is that section 9 of the National Housing Act should be amended, if necessary, to give the provinces and the municipalities the right where desired, to establish limited dividend corporations -to engage in housing. It is obvious that the mortgage companies are not dealing with this problem as it should be dealt with, and where provinces
or municipalities wish to deal with this emergency problem they certainly should have the right to do so.
My tenth point is that subsidies should be provided to make sure that the difference between what the worker can pay -and what is economic rent should be bridged by some authority, and the federal authority is the one to make that gesture. It is recognized that a great number of people in every country do not normally receive a large enough wage or income to provide decent accommodation. I have here a little booklet entitled, "Planning the Canada of To-Morrow", written by Gordon McL. Pitts, president of -the architects' association. I find that according to these 1941 statistics 10 per cent of our Canad-ia^ workers received an income under $400. If you assume that they could afford for rent 20 -per cent of their income, that group should not pay more than $6.50 a month. Then 12 per cent received an inoome between $400 and $799, which would enable them to pay $7.30 a month in rent; 18 per cent received an inoome between $800 and $1,199, on which they could pay a rent of $20 a month; and 22 per cent received an income between $1,200 and $1,599, which would enable them to pay $25 a month rent. It also shows that 62 per cent of the population of Canada earned less than $l,6oC a year, none of whom could afford to pay more than $25 rent and, -as I have already pointed out, 10 per cert earned an inoome on which they should not be paying more than $6.50 a month rent.
Nathan Strauss, a pioneer in public housing in the United States writes in the "Seven Myths of Housing":
The public housing programme is foiunde-d on the fact that, without .government subsidy, decent housing cannot be put within the means of the families that live in . . . slums. This fact, distasteful as it may be to many people, is incontrovertible. History and mathematics both confirm -it. To achieve the goal of rehousing -those 'families, the -rents charged can be little more than half the -rents w-hic-h must be charged in livable new housing erected by private enterprise.	,
The federal Government is the only authority financially able to provide these subsidies.
My eleventh point is that Wartime Housing should be continued. In view of the criticisms I have made of Wartime Housing in the past it might seem strange at this stage that I want to see it continued. I frankly admit that Wartime Housing constructed and made available at lower rates better housing than the people who live in these quarters would have had if Wartime Housing had not come into the picture. However, I suggest that Wartime Housing, instead of building temporary houses which will eventually become
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

slums should build permanent houses. It is unfortunate that Wartime Housing regulations, certainly in western Canada, have insisted that basements be not allowed. But the difference in cost between temporary and permanent housing is so small that I suggest that nothing but permanent houses should be built. In Great Britain, with a very short supply of materials, it has been announced that it is government policy that permanent rather than temporary houses shall be built. This will result in fewer houses being available at the end of 1946 but on the other hand the people who are housed in them will have permanent homes and the materials will not be wasted.
My twelfth point is that the National Housing Act should be amended so that loans might be made up to the full cost of houses. I understand that at the present time it is very difficult in most cities to get houses built at the valuation; that a house which costs $7,000 is valued for lending purposes at, say $5,000. A house costing $5,000 is declared to have a rental value of $4,000, and consequently the prospective owner must advance $1,400 to secure a maximum loan of $3,600. The act should be amended so -that the prospective owner should not be required to make such a large initial payment.
My thirteenth and last point under this head is a recommendation that machinery should be established so that loans might be made available to farmers and residents of towns and villages under the National Housing Act. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) will probably reply that there is nothing to stop that now, but one of the returns brought down last year showed that not a single farm dwelling had been constructed in Canada under the National Housing Act.
I come to my next suggestion, which must be part of any over-all solution, namely that the provinces should be taken immediately into the confidence of the federal authority and the responsibility of each worked out, and then I suggest that the provinces should pass legislation defining the metropolitan and regional areas within the province. News items appearing in the Ottawa papers recently regarding disputes between the city of Ottawa and the township of Nepean indicate the problems that arise as we try to acquire land to solve our housing problems. The metropolitan cities in Canada or in any other country are a collection of a number of separate corporations, and if the housing problems of the people living in that area are to be solved there must be a larger unit that will have jurisdiction and authority to purchase land and plan and zone the communities.

The idea of planning our Communities is not a new one. In the days of the Romans the authorities worked out carefully prepared plans for their new communities. When they were establishing a new town they decided where the market should be, where the churches and the residences should be and what form of protection should be provided against a possible enemy. All these details were carefully worked out. But unfortunately in the building of Canada these factors have not been taken into consideration. In the building of our towns in the west, for instance, someone who owned some land and had some pull was able to get a townsite established on his section, and even though there might be good water and a good building site a mile away towns were frequently built on swamps or in the worst possible location. All this sort of thing results from the failure of the authority on the provincial level or on the national level to set up metropolitan and regional areas and plan their development. So that the job to be done by the provinces would be, as I see it, to make sure that they have their metropolitan and rural regional areas planned so that there may be an orderly development of the various communities within the province.
Other responsibilities of the province would be to set up limited dividend corporations and participate in the job of building houses, if necessary. They should allocate the dominion loans to the corporations and guarantee 'the repayment, and they should also provide for the building of houses in communities which have not been organized or in communities where the local commissions are failing to function.
A final word about the responsibility, on the local level of government, of the local authorities. Here is where the rank and file of the people must participate actively, in seeing that the slums are cleared, that the type of houses built are to conform with modem standards, taking into account our great resources and the type of housing we should like to have for ourselves and for our children. The local municipalities should appoint members to metropolitan or regional commissions who, with local members representing the provincial and federal authorities, would plan their areas, set priorities under the plan, buy, expropriate, hold and lease land, plan neighbourhoods, lease land for public housing, according to their over-all plan, and re-house those moved in slum clearance. It will be necessary, of course, for them to raise their share of the local funds required to carry out their programme.

The Address

Mr. Arsenault
In conclusion, let me summarize the responsibilities on each level of government.
Ottawa must provide enough building materials, must channel them to low-cost houses, provide funds for a large-scale housing programme, and make them available to provinces for low-cost, low-rent houses.
The provinces must promote the home building programme, co-operate with the dominion and the municipalities, set up metropolitan housing commissions, and help them plan and build neighbourhoods.
The municipalities must follow through on the local level, join the housing commissions to make them work energetically, and stimulate local interest and education for neighbourhood building.


Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, during the last session of parliament, a resolution was voted in this chamber, which read in part as follows:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag . . .
The joint committee appointed held two
meetings, on November 27 and December 4, 1945.
About fifteen hundred various flag designs were tabled before the members of the committee, who felt unable to formulate a specific recommendation in the short time at their disposal. A similar joint committee will be set up to continue the study of this important question at the present session of parliament.
Therefore the choice of a national flag for our country stands amongst the matters of major importance which will be dealt with by the members of this house in the course of the coming weeks. My intention in bringing this subject forward at this early stage of the session, and purposely before the flag joint committee resumes its work, is to give to this contentious but at the same time vital problem an entirely new approach, an approach which is not based on either English-Canadian or French-Canadian sentiment but merely upon daring logic. At the same time I am endeavouring to bring, in this important national issue, my modest but sincere contribution to national unity.
For many years there has been a growing sentiment in favour of a distinctive national flag in every part of Canada. Although a young nation, Canada finds herself to-day one of the important powers of the world. In the course of the last thirty years our country has performed great achievements from which Canadians derive a glowing national pride,
and this translates itself into a distinctive Canadian spirit. This new Canadian spirit grew to unexpected proportions during these last war years, particularly amongst our service men and women. As a result, never before in our history has there been a time when Canadians were prouder of being Canadians. And anywhere in the world where a Canadian may go to-day, he is welcomed, he is greeted, and he is highly respected as soon as he identifies himself as a Canadian.
Certainly the time has come when that Canadian, proud as he is of his own land, should be given a distinctive sign by which he could easily, promptly and fully identify himself at first sight as being a Canadian. The time is now due when this country, our country, should be given a distinctive national flag by which she could distinctly identify herself from other parts of the world, a Canadian flag that would make every Canadian boy and girl live, not for the country his or her ancestors came from, one or two or three hundred years ago, but live for, work for, fight for, and be ready to die for his or her own sacred native land-Canada.
Nothing has contributed more to the rise of sectionalism in this country in the past than the lack of a national flag, in Canada and for Canada. We need a national flag, distinctly Canadian, which will recall to all Canadians that their hearts should be broad enough to love their family, their village, their province, but above all, their Canada, a national flag which will infuse into the hearts and minds of Canadians a sound sentiment of duty and responsibility toward their land, all of their land.
Had we all been true Canadians in the past; had we steadily instilled the principles of Canadianism, without hyphens, without descriptive prefixes; had we "let the dead bury their dead"; had we had a distinctive national flag, then most of the differences which tend to divide us Canadians of different racial extractions, especially in periods of national emergency, would never have arisen.
At this point, may I recall that perhaps no individuals in Canada hold more power in their hands to spread about unity throughout this country than the representatives of the Ottawa press gallery.
Speaking from the experience which I have gathered during the last session of parliament,-may I add that in no other place in Canada have I 'found a more tangible and more sincere spirit in favour of Canadian unity than amongst our good friends of the press gallery. They can rest assured that their constant and valuable efforts in favour of bringing about
The Address-Mr. Arsenault

a better spirit of understanding in this country are widely recognized and highly appreciated by all true Canadians.
Other apostles of Canadian unity can also be found in the editorial rooms of many of our leading Canadian dailies, weeklies or periodicals as well as in the newsrooms of our broadcasting stations. To indicate to what extent the majority of Canadians of either language are able to agree on matters of principle pertaining to the government of this country, may I give as striking examples the editorials written day after day, and week after week, by two outstanding Canadian journalists. One is English speaking, the other is French speaking. One is Mr. B. K. Sandwell, editor in chief of Saturday Night of Toronto, whose editorials are widely welcomed in the province of Quebec as much as they are in other parts of Canada. The other is Mr. Eugene L'Heureux of Quebec city, who for many years contributed regularly to five daily newspapers in the province of Quebec. Mr. L'Heureux' daily editorials reflect the sentiments and the deep thoughts of the majority of the people of the province of Quebec, yet they could be translated and published in newspapers of English expression throughout Canada, and win the approval of most English speaking Canadians, as well as Mr. Sandwelks editorials could be translated into French and published in any newspapers of French expression and be well received by Quebec readers at large. What is the reason? Both are true Canadians, and represent each in his respective sphere the sentiments of all true Canadians of either language.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Bona Arsenault: From a letter sent out to the members of the Senate and the House of Commons in October last by the Toronto assembly No. 107 of the Native Sons of Canada, I quote briefly:
In a national flag if more than one emblem is displayed the upper lefthand corner next to the staff is reserved for the emblem of the dominant state, and the lower rightband comer on the fly is reserved for the vassal or subservient state.
A national flag speaks of the authority of the parliament of the country if represents. The union jack speaks of the authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and its inclusion in the place of honour in a. Canadian flag means that Canada is >a dependency of the United Kingdom.
May I quote now again, briefly, from an editorial published in the well known Toronto weekly, Saturday Night, on October 27, 1945, entitled, "Nation and Flag":
Surely the opponents of the official recognition of a Canadian, flag must see, if they will look at the matter with their brains and not with their feelings, that it is fundamentally absurd for nation A, which is so distinct from nation" B, that it can be at peace when nation B is at war and at war when B is at pfeace to insist that its flag and the flag of B are and must ever remain identical.
A national flag is a symbol of sovereignty. The sovereignty of Canada is vested in the Canadian people, as the sovereignty of the United Kingdom is vested in the people of the kingdom. They are not the same sovereignty. They do not need the same flag.
If there are any Canadians who should be entitled to have something to say about the choice of a national flag in Canada, I assume that this house will agree with me that they are those gallant, courageous and brave young service men and women who in this last war year after year-and they were long years- thousands of miles away from their native land were doing the fighting.
In the December 10, 1945 issue of the Canadian army forces newspaper The Maple Leal published in London, England, I read that service men speak out loudly for a truly Canadian flag. May I quote briefly:
Reported erroneously in ia Canadian dispatch as having been approved by the king as the national flag of Canada, but later found to be only one of a thousand designs submitted, the controversial banner incorporated a union jack in the upper lefthand corner, a sprig of three maple leaves in the centre of a white field and three golden fleur-de-lis on a blue circle in the upper right-hand corner. That the matter of Canada's flag is close to the heart of Canadians overseas is shown by the fact that more letters were received on this subject in the past two days than on any other subject or controversy over an ordinary two-week period.
Here is a short quotation from an editorial published in The Maple Leaf qn this subject entitled, "Ottawa Papers Please Copy":

Who has a better right to voice their opinion on the proposed all-Canadian flag than the men and women of Canada's fighting forces now being demobilized ?
Elsewhere on this page are excerpts from letters written by all ranks of servicemen and women of the navy, army and R.C.A.F. Almost of one accord they express a well-round "No" to the proposed flag, the sketch of which appeared in the December 6 issue of The Maple Leaf. We know that the story of this particular flag is not official, but it has served to uproot a flood of opinion that cannot be ignored. _
A recent Gallup poll resulted in sixty-eight per cent of the people in Canada wanting an entirely distinctive flag. And now the voice _ of Canadians in the United Kingdom is being heard in no uncertain terms. We believe that their ideas should carry as much weight as Canadians at home. To the committee at home in whose hands lies the final selection, we say . . . please note.
In this convincing manner the editor of The Maple Leaf supports the opinion of his correspondents on the flag issue. And I sincerely hope that every member of the house will carefully note the opinion expressed by our servicemen and women on the choice of the national flag, such as outlined in The Maple Leaf. With them I repeat:
Who has a better right to voice an opinion on the proposed all-Gandian flag than the men and women of Canada's fighting forces now being demobilized?
And I will add: Who knows better than they the meaning of sacrifice for country?
At this point I wish to make a clear distinction between a national flag, an official flag and an authorized flag or ensign. Canada has an authorized ensign and an official flag. Canada has as yet no national flag. Canada has had an authorized ensign since 1892. That is the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly which was authorized for use by merchant vessels registered in Canada. That was confirmed by the Canadian Shipping Act of 1934.
Canada has had an official flag since 1911. The union jack was officially declared to be the proper flag to be flown on land in Canada. I cannot think of any reason, historical, constitutional or otherwise why the union jack and the red ensign should not be retained in their particular places to fulfil their particular functions, one as our king's flag and the symbol of our membership in the British commonwealth of nations, the other as the ensign of our merchant ships, with perhaps a maple leaf in the lower right-hand corner instead of the coat of arms of Canada.
All nations of the world at all times have used different flags for different tactical purposes. Those flags have been described as national, official or authorized flags or ensigns. Speaking before the joint committee on December 4, 1945, the Secretary of State (Mr. MARCH 21, 1946
The Address-Mr. Arsenault
Martin) declared that Great Britain at present uses over one hundred different designs of national, official or authorized flags or ensigns. Those who go to Montreal once in a while can see in the Windsor station over twenty-one designs of British flags. Prior to the last war France was using at least seven different flags which were entirely different from one another. Besides the tricolour there was the Tripoli merchant flag, the Algiers flag, the Tunis flag, the French Cochin-China flag, the kingdom of Siam ensign and the Madagascar flag.
To-day the United States of America are using at least six different flag designs. There are the stars and stripes, the President's flag, the United States union jack, the United States yacht ensign, the United States revenue flag and the Hawaiian flag. Although Hawaii is a possession of the United States, their flag has nothing at all of the stars and stripes in its design. Another example, is the island of Malta which is a British possession. They also have a national flag which has absolutely nothing in common with the union jack. As we all recall, that flag is the Maltese red cross on a white field. There are scores of other examples that could be given all along the line.
As do other leading countries of the world, Canada may use different designs of flags, either national, official or authorized, for different tactical purposes. Canadians could at
this time, on behalf of unity, take advantage of these exceptional circumstances and the great interest aroused by the choice of a national flag to settle onde and for all, not only this matter of the choice of a national flag for Canada but the whole question of our Canadian flag and ensigns. This should be settled by an act of this parliament of a free nation.
Since Canada is a member of the British commonwealth, united to her sister nations under the constitutional authority of the same king, I cannot very well see why anyone in this country could reasonably object to the full-sized union jack being officially recognized by this parliament as the official symbol of our partnership in the commonwealth, the finest example in history of mutual friendship between nations and one of the strongest means of maintaining peace in the world in these trying days.
Too much is involved to try to put forward any sort of narrow nationalism in the face of the distressful conditions that we find in the world to-day. Not only should we help to maintain the British commonwealth of nations, we should have a commonwealth of all the nations of the world based on the same principles of mutual friendship and collaboration. The union jack is here to stay, to stay as long as Canada is ready to share her obligations and the benefits of her privileges as part of the British commonwealth of nations. There is a great principle involved in this issue with far-reaching consequences which cannot be overlooked by anyone. As a French-speaking representative in this house from the province of Quebec may I say that Quebec will be the last province of Canada to pull down the union jack. Our religion, our language, our civil rights were guaranteed and granted to us French-speaking Canadians under the union jack. As the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) stated in the house on November 13, 1945:
It is under the union jack that the institutions of this Canadian nation have grown' and developed and have 'brought us to the point where now, and for a good many years now, the dominion is and has been an autonomous state subject in no phase of its domestic or its external affairs to any other authority than this Canadian parliament.
I notice that my time is just about up, but with the unanimous consent of the house I should like to finish stating my conclusions. They will take only a few more minutes. The province of Quebec also remembers, as much as any other part of Canada, those uncertain and crucial days of 1940 and 1941 when there occurred the collapse of France and of all organized armed resistance on the European continent, when the United States had not had Pearl Harbor and when Soviet Russia had not yet entered the war. Quebec realizes that we Frenchspeaking Canadians or English-speaking Canadians would all be slaves of Germany to-day had it not been for the three crosses of Saint George, Saint Andrew and Saint Patrick which were joined together and lifted proudly by Great Britain along with the dominions against the enemies of mankind,
As evidence of this contention and without any discriminating intentions, may I say that while the red ensign, the authorized flag of our merchant navy, is flown on these parliament buildings, the union jack, the full-sized union jack still unfolds itself to the breeze on parliament hill of Quebec only a few acres away from the very spot where 187 years ago two chivalrous and gallant soldiers, Wolfe and Montcalm, sealed the fate of this country.
Canada's constitutional position to-day with respect to Great Britain is similar to the position of Scotland with respect to England from 1603 to 1707. For over one hundred years the two kingdoms of Scotland and England were united under one king but had separate parliaments. For over one hundred years, from 1603, the year of the union of the two kingdoms under one king, until 1707, the year of
The Address-Mr. Arsenault

the legislative union of the two countries, each of fhese nations had their national flag but both nations used the union jack at the same time as the king's flag, the flag of their union under the same king.
To-day Canada is constitutionally an equal of Great Britain. Each country has a separate parliament but both countries are united under the same king. Each country has the same symbol of allegiance to the king, the union jack. Canada has an ofEcial flag, the union jack. Canada has an authorized ensign for her merchant marine, the red ensign. Canada now needs a national flag such as both England and Scotland had prior to the legislative union of the two countries. Therefore, I propose, as the only possible satisfactory and final settlement of the flag issue in Canada, the following, which will undoubtedly win the almost unanimous support of all true Canadians of whatever racial extraction or language:
1.	That this parliament of a free, autonomous and independent nation reconfirms the union jack as Canada's king's flag and as the official symbol of our country's partnership in the British commonwealth of nations.
2.	That this parliament maintains the red ensign in the functions it has filled ever since 1892 as the naval ensign of Canada's merchant marine, with possibly the coat of arms being replaced by the maple leaf.
3.	That this parliament gives to the Canadian nation a national flag, which will not be an English-Canadian flag, or a French-Cana-dian flag, or an English and French colonial flag, but an all-Canadian national flag.
Speaking in this house on November 13, 1945, the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) declared:
The purpose for which it is suggested there should be a distinctive national flag is to have a symbol that all Canadians can look upon as distinctively their own, not because they want to discard the union jack, but because the union jack is not distinctively their own and because they feel that their nation has now reached the stature in the family of nations that requires it to have something which can be regarded as its own.
On February 14, 1938, when the flag ques-tiontion came up in this house, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made the following statement:
The use of the union jack on anything that is distinctively Canadian in the United States does not help to emphasize the individuality of this country or its distinct nationality; it helps to submerge them together.
The hon.. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), speaking in this house on the same subject on November 8, 1945, said:

We in Canada have shared the union jack, and we shall always honour it as the symbol of much that is best and most precious in our heritage; but we have had nothing that has been peculiarly and indisputably our own, that would symbolize Canada, all of Canada and everyone in Canada. There should be something that all can see and look to with pride, as the symbol of this great nation of ours, to which affection and loyalty can attach, and which can become the sign of the unity and purpose that will make Canada great.
One final quotation. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), speaking in this house on November 8, 1945, said:
I wish to see Canada with a distinctive flag, and in my opinion the red ensign with -a coat of arms on it, which I would rather say nothing about, is not a distinctive flag. . . . The flag of the British commonwealth is the union jack, and we respect it, but I am pleased indeed to know that my hon. friends to the right are prepared .to recognize that the time has come when Canada should have a flag of her own.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a free nation, just as politically free from Great Britain as Great Britain is free from her, and certainly more economically independent from the British isles than she is from us. Therefore a national flag for Chnada must not constitute the symbol of what Canada was when she stood as a colony under the supreme authority and jurisdiction of the imperial parliament, but of what she is to-day, an independent nation, a respected power amongst the nations of the world.
Like most countries Canada has a symbol which is recognized1 the world over as the expression of Canadian nationality. That emblem is the maple leaf. On this one thing we find the Canadian people almost unanimous, that the maple leaf must be given the position of honour in the proposed national flag if it is to be ad all-Canadian flag.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Unless the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house to proceed I must ask him to resume his seat as his time has expired. [DOT]


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak as a private member of the house and as a member of the opposition. I have consistently supported certain principles ever since I came into the house.
First I wish to congratulate the government upon writing off the $400,000,000 owed by Britain to Canada under the commonwealth air training plan, and next I congratulate the government upon advancing a loan to Britain to facilitate the exchange of exports and imports between our two countries.

The Address-Mr. Church
I should like to say to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Arsenault) and to the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacoihbe) that had it not been for the glorious young Canadians and young men from the other dominions who stood by Britain's side when she had to go it alone at Dunkirk and afterwards at Dieppe, we might have experienced the awful horrors of war on our own Canadiaji soil, the concentration camps, the whip, the gestapo police, the loud speaker and savagery-and the carting away of thousands of the people of Quebec, Ontario, and the maritimes as thousands were carted away from countries ravaged by the German war machine. Now is the time for cool heads, clear thinking, and plain speaking. There is * a great deal of kindness in this House of Commons. I found that out years ago when I first entered the house, but the time has come to pay tribute where it is due, to Britain for saving our shores from invasion.
Speaking of the glorious part that France played in the war of 1914-18 and of the tribulations which that country suffered and her triumphs I would remind the house that Mr. Churchill said that France will always be a great nation and ally of Britain, and we all hope that it will be restored very shortly.
I wish to congratulate the government on the appointment of that great *soldier, Lord Alexander, to be governor general of this country. In the session of 1943-44, in a debate on external affairs, I proposed to the Prime Minister that after a great war we should follow what was the custom in that great land to the south of us where, following the war between the north and the south, great soldiers were elected to be president of that great country, and that similarly we should appoint a great soldier to be governor general of Canada, and in that debate I proposed that either Lieutenant-General Montgomery or Lieutenant-General Alexander be appointed the next governor general of this country. I hope there will not be any departure from that principle of a great Briton being appointed, which has been observed since confederation. Appointments from the old land act as a system of checks and balances. It is a system -which harmonizes parties and eliminates party strife, and the various great men who have occupied the office have done a great deal for the welfare of our empire and of mankind.
I have referred in this house from time to time to the principles which I continue to support. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Christianity is part of the law of England, and by the Constitutional Act of 1791 it became
the law of Canada. Certain principles should be supported in these debates. These are some economic truths which should be an aid: To uphold the Christian religion and resist all attacks on it. Adequate security against external aggression and safety for our seaborne trade. An armed Britain forever aided by Canada. The maintenance of internal law and order, that all men may reap what they have sown. Impartial justice administered by a judiciary free from any interference or pressure on the part of the executive, and I want to compliment the member for West Calgary (Mr. Smith) on his able address last nigjbt in the liberty of -the subject. Sound finance and strict supervision of our national income and expenditure. Continuous and long-sighted development of our empire trade, without which Great Britain and her dominions will perish. The promotion of all measures which will improve the health, happiness, welfare and social conditions of the people of this country as a whole. Support of private enterprise and initiative as against state trading and the nationalization of industries. Go not with the multitude to do wrong. Always tell the truth to the people. You can ask a sacrifice of the people without fear, but to offer a bribe is dangerous. While it is not the empire's business to be the policeman of the world, it is equally not our job to be its governess. Trust the people and they will trust you.
I say to the government of the day, do not be afraid to tell the people that you have made a mistake. The Canadian people do not expect its leaders to be gods. Lastly, never legislate against human nature.
There are four cardinal principles which we in this country have forgotten, although I believe they are intimately connected with our greatest domestic problems of the present time. They are as follows: parliamentary reform, constitutional reform, cabinet reform and law reform. Twenty years ago they got law reform in England. In this matter we are twenty years behind the times. Long overdue is the consolidation of our statutes, which I have urged for a number of years, as also has the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) since he came to the house. The code was written in 1907. As the debates have shown, our laws need overhauling.
A day or two ago there was introduced into the legislature of Ontario a budget which forecasts a deficit of $21 million, and which is another evidence of the need of a new charter for the provinces. When all is said and done, such conditions were beyond the
The Address-Mr. Church

scope of the imagination of the fathers of confederation. The provinces were created, one might say, for political and not economic purposes. As I have said before, they are only a duplication of the municipal system. But if their powers and rights and privileges under section 92 of the British North America Act are taken from them by this parliament,' the time must come for writing a new charter. They are here now to stay and have a function and a duty to perform in confederation, and it is not right to take their revenues away from them and then expect them to meet post-war conditions. I look upon the province of Ontario as a forgotten child of confederation. Some years ago, together with my friend Mr. McCrea, of Sherbrooke, then a very much respected government member, I asked a question which was the subject of joint returns, which showed that forty-three per cent of the cash taxes of this country are paid by Ontario, and about forty-one per cent by Quebec, so that eighty-three per cent of the cash taxes of this country are contributed by the two industrial provinces. I have always been in favour of the principle for confederation, the old Cornish battle-cry, "Each for all and all for each." I believe that principle is yet sound. I never heard before 1939 the argument that the province of Ontario is living off the west; I am sure it is not right, either in the economic sense, the historical sense, or any financial sense The time has now come when something should be done on this subject and the government must find a solution of the problem in the coming dominion-provincial conference. Ontario needs active help and at once to meet her functions.
I should like to say a word in reply to those who raised the question of providing food for Britain. It is proposed that we should have . a much greater food production. I remember that in the session of 1938, three months before Munich, and again in the spring of 1939, when the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture were before the house, and I saw the war coming, and when the British Medical Association were meeting in London, I proposed that this country should establish underground food reservoirs to store our wheat, food and canned goods in the old country. At that time Canada had a preference for wheat in the mother country. Yet there were those on the prairies who contended that theirs was a free trade industry, that it was a north and south industry instead of an east and west industry to Britain and her allies. That was proven to be a fallacy. At the meeting of the British Medical Association it was shown that hard

wheat could be stored scientifically and kept good for ten years over there, and not the Canadian wheat bootlegged the way it used to be along the harbours of the seaboard on the United States side.( Had such war food reservoirs been established and wheat stored there, consider what the position would have been in the spring of 1940 and in 1941 when, during the great battle of thfe Atlantic, the mother country had only two and half weeks' supply of food. We abrogated the British preference foolishly on wheat by the United States treaty of 1938 and threw away our preference. I mention this to indicate what might have been done in view of the war, at a time when, I believe, we had half a billion bushels of wheat available a year, instead of paying an acre bonus not to sow it at all.
On this matter of food production I doubt whether the government has gone far enough. It is all very well to talk about summerfallowing and that sort of thing; the grain could be sown now and shipped next fall to the markets in Europe, where suffering is so intense. If we go into the production of coarse grains and turn them into pork it will be some time before the product will be obtained. I believe that my leader, the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken), was quite right in calling the government's attention to that particular point.
I support this loan to Britain because it is founded upon a sound basis, namely on the exchange of goods and services in the form of exports and imports. It is not like the United States loam, which is simply an exchange of goods for gold or for debt. Why was that debt of Britain incurred with our great ally to the south? It was incurred to save the shores of America from invasion, and we must not forget that very little in the way of cash will be obtained from the new American loan. Moreover, when we remember that the loan is tied up with the Bretton Woods agreement, the success of which is very doubtful, tied up with the abolition or curtailment of preferences and with other conditions, I believe that the Canadian government has made a good exchange in the loan of SI,250 million. I should like to see the loan to the mother country from the United States withdrawn. Canada has the services that are needed. She has wheat, flour, manufactured goods of all sorts, canned goods and all the rest of it, and I see no reason why the other dominions, Australia and New Zealand, could not take up the balance of the loan of four billions, if we increased our loan, so as to give the mother country a chance to recover. It would help to pay the debt which, after all, America as a

The Address-Mr. Church
whole owes to the mother country for protecting our shores, because there is n,o doubt in the world that the mother country has saved from invasion not only the shores of Canada, but New York, Boston, and Savannah, Georgia, where the Bretton Woods people met to-day.
I have said before, and I repeat, that the United States government always speaks with two voices, the congressional voice and the voice of the President. Do not forget that the American government is not the American congress. I doubt whether congress will agree to the loan until next fall and then only on certain conditions that Britain will not be able to accept the loan.
I was in Cleveland the other day, in Buffalo and in some other cities in the United States and I found out what former members of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had been doing. Upton Close and others who think like him were before and for a year or two on the payroll of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at one time, and I remember calling the attention of the government to the fact that the C3.C. were hiring aliens here to spread news unfavourable to this country and the empire and the cause of the allies. As a matter of fact, at that time the C.B.C. was one of the most mischievous institutions in Canada. It was sending out information which it had no right to disseminate. What did Upton Close say in Cleveland the other day? There appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer advertisements of his views for meetings, in which he said that the British empire is on crutches and is nearly at the end of its day. Similar views have been expressed by others. I have here reports of speeches made in the old country commenting on all this, but I will not take the time now to quote from them. I wish to protest against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation being used in this mischievous way at a time when the mother country has suffered so severely. We find twenty-six thousand church and school buildings destroyed over there, while not a farmhouse, not a barn has been pulled down, as a result of the war, either in Canada or in the United States.
Surely we can pay tribute to the mother country for what it has done and not cavil about a measly loan. As a matter of fact, some of the best businessmen in the country, Liberals too, have pointed out that the loan to Britain is a splendid business proposition and should be extended. I believe it could be increased to two and a half billions over two years, and the other two billions could be taken
up by New Zealand and Australia, many of whose wonderful products have been displayed from time to time at our exhibitions here.
The Canadian people are long suffering, but there is a limit to their patience. That limit has been reached. As a result of mistakes made in the war and in the reconstruction period so far, they are losing their confidence in all governments. They believe that there has been overgovernment and overtaxation in Canada, and they are losing their confidence not only in the administration but in members of parliament as well. They are becoming critical of the work that is being done in the nation's various legislatures. The worst of it is that the public are not really acquainted with the facts in any situation that confronts them. They cannot get the truth and the whole truth concerning any problem that faces the governments of Canada. No; they have been blindfolded. They have not been given the real, actual facts. We have had a control system in this country throughout the war- we still have it-which has virtually made the work of the House of Commons unnecessary. We might as well have gone home and locked up the House of Commons, for in part the nation's affairs in the war have been handed over to boards over the head of parliament, over the law courts of the country, without any public regulation whatsoever.
There is now too much soothing syrup being poured over the radio by controls and bureaucrats. There is too much of that sort of thing being dished up and served for the purpose of making Canadians happy. There is no sacrifice that Canadians will not willingly make in this time of peace and reconversion, just as there was no sacrifice during the war which they were unwilling to make. But the people should be given the facts. There is a great deal of waste in Canada to-day. I have seen in our cities and towns in various parts of the country garbage collectors picking up half loaves of bread and all that sort of thing. There is too great a waste of food and something should be done about it, and I am glad to see the government starting a conversion and saving campaign.
I do not mind saying that in my opinion the government is taking a step in the right direction, but it should have taken that step long ago. I repeat, the people of Canada want to know the truth about the conduct of public business, and not necessarily the official truth. The fact is that we did not get the official truth about the spy business. We have always had spies in this country. I have seen them in Ottawa attending sport contests and regattas before the last war- Ribbentrop, Yon Papen and the like. In this
The Address-Mr. Church

house I complained at one time about one embassy in Ottawa which represented the puppet government of Premier Darlan, and another French Premier Laval, who was executed a comparatively short time ago. I asked the government in this house a question ' about that particular puppet Petain- Vichy government of France in Canada, but 1 got no satisfactory answer. They had a big house here. I often saw many people going into it though I was never invited myself. I asked, was an inspection made at a dark time of the war? Was that house ever closed up? In an order for a return I asked whether there had been any inspection of it. We had submarines coming up the St. Lawrence and there was a debate in this house, behind closed doors, on the subject. I do not know what happened because I did not attend the private meetings, but I do know that the Petain embassy in question was allowed to stay open, and the heads of it are still in Canada. You need not talk about spy business. Spies are located everywhere in this country, and other countries during and after every war. In fact, they know more than some of us do in this house.
We have seen in the city of Ottawa a large basic industry doing more to solve the unemployment problem than any other agency, the business known as the embassy cure for unemployment. They have gone on the high seas, below seas and up in the air. In fact, I saw the deputy leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the last day I was in the house, sitting beside the Minister of Soldiers Welfare (Mr. Mackenzie). It was at the last session, but unfortunately I had to go home at the time. It was about the 7th of December. I said to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), "You had better be careful about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. You had better give him a bodyguard when he goes to the UNO, because I understand he flew as far as Moscow, and he might have been kidnapped." I say that Ottawa is full of these ambassadors of foreign countries; here at the opening of parliament there were forty-six of them and their deputies in the house. I do not know what they are going to do in the hot weather here if they all wear uniforms, swords, epaulettes and steel spurs; but I do say we are making ourselves ridiculous with all these Canadian embassies scattered all over the world. What do these men do? Well, the Canadian envoys make speeches all over the seven seas, and it is costing a great deal of money to maintain these embassies abroad.
That is something I should like to see the Conservative party deal with. I am a Con-
[Mi. Church.]
servative, and have never been anything else. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said I was the only "true blue" left.
I have always been a progressive Conservative; but with all the principles I have supported from the time I was on the Toronto city council, I do not think I need call myself a Progressive Conservative. Let the Conservative party stand firm on the ground that the state exists for the individual, not the individual for the state; that state interference with the full liberty of the subject is an evil thing per se, the encroachments of which should be most searchingly scrutinized and resisted; that no government department, except where it enjoys a monopoly, can conduct business at a profit; that the prosperity of the nation rests on the enterprise and ability of individuals in free association to conduct their affairs with a minimum of regulation and interference; that capital and labour are partners and not enemies, indispensable to one another; that bureaucracy is the enemy of both and will ruin them morally and financially if they do not restrict its inordinate increase; and, finally, that what the Conservatives seek is the welfare of the whole community, and no sectional or class advantage.
In the debate last year, on September 11, 1945, I referred to the insistent demand all over the country that there should be some declaration of policy by the government in regard to its various control bodies, but I find that little or nothing has been done. At the present time all kinds of bodies are spending money like water, over the head of par-' liament. As I said in this house on September 11. 1945:
Every, principle for which the British nation struggled in the old land since the 17th century has been surrendered to the political caucuses. Parliament itself, which came into being to ensure that taxes shall be voted only by those who have to pay them, has become the institution through which those who do not pay them impose them on others.
I want to emphasize to the committee that powers of legislation older even than the right of taxpayers to determine the national expenditure have been surrendered, and if we are to continue this sort of thing the power of parliament will be gone forever. Whole spheres of activity, involving the livelihood of every man, woman and child in this country, have been removed from the jurisdiction of the law and of parliament and reserved for the determination of tribunals, irresponsible, irremovable, governed by no control and subject to no appeal, ...
I come from a very large taxpaying city. The working class have to pay a 12 per cent sales tax, and the burden of taxation is very heavy upon them and upon'business firms in the district. Some small business men have been put out of business altogether.
Let us stop feeding inflation by these huge expenditures. In Washington they propose to reduce expenditures by at least fifty per cent,

The Address-Mr. Church
while we are increasing them by leaps and bounds. We should call a halt to this sort of thing. The trouble is that we are only holding a postmortem when we come to this house. I was glad to see the new auditor general's report, because three or four years ago I had a letter from Mr. Sellar, who at one time was secretary to a very good finance minister, the late Mr. Robb. I was complaining that he had not the powers of the former auditor general, John MacDougall, who would raise questions in the back of the auditor general's report, pointing out to parliament the errors made in the name of the state. I am glad to see there has been an improvement in the last auditor general's report. We all know what happens to an individual or to a nation which goes on borrowing and does not keep its -finances within bounds. It becomes bankrupt. When you continue to spend more than you make and keep on borrowing money to make up the difference, you know the result. You know, too, that a big chunk out of every dollar a working man earns and spends is used to pay taxes. There is a sales tax on almost everything he buys, so that everyone should look at the way the government is spending our dollars. In my opinion the government should begin now to live within its means. During the war of necessity we spent huge sums of money; yet now, with the war over, the government proposes to spend much more -than in any pre-war year. Most thoughtful people believe that government expenditures are now far greater than; they need be. They believe that the government. like a family, should live within its means that it should not spend more than it takes in and that it should not keep going deeper into debt; yet that is exactly what is happening to-day. Our government is spending millions more than it takes in, and it continues to borrow or add taxes to make up the difference. That is the sort of money handling that causes inflation. Economy in government means money in your pocketbook. If the Canadian people will act to reduce government spending and take steps to increase -production, inflation will be stopped; and this is the only way in which it can be stopped. I urge this house to cut the cost of government, to eliminate all waste, all unnecessary services and postpone all expenditures than can be put off until our war bills are paid. Mr. Truman has adopted that policy, and I urge the government to start living at a level that we can afford to maintain. We shall soon see the result in the cost of everything we have to buy, food, clothing and everything else. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) had a good example the 63260-til
other day of what is happening. You cannot buy a shirt here, yet he saw dozens of them in the windows in Jamaica. I suppose they were sent there in exchange for some of that wonderful rum; I suppose that would be considered an exchange of goods and services.
I wish to ask this question of this House of Commons, because I see a large number of returned soldiers here to-night as members of the house. What is to be the future position of the soldiers who are returning home to Canada? The trials and troubles and evils which brought about the second war are still with us; certainly at least the economic ones are: lack of housing; lack of employment; the return to old jobs; hospitalization for themselves and their families, and so on. Look at this housing situation. It brings to mind the situation at Bethlehem, where the Son of Man had to find housing in a manger. We seem to have made no improvement at all in our housing policy since that time. This matter has come before the house in season -and out of season, yet nothing has been done about it. I will tell you what is the difficulty in connection with housing. In 1935 the Bennett government at least did one thing; it appointed a committee to deal with this matter. There was a good deal of debate on a motion of mine, but that committee was appointed; it brought in a report, and the present government which came in in 1936-37, lent 89 millions of dollars for the construction of houses. I objected to the creation of a great housing department, and at that time labour and building materials were also scarce; yet under that policy the whole constituency of York West, the constituency of York South, the constituency of York East, and the northern portions of the constituency represented by the hon. member for Eglinton were built up by loans through the banks at three per cent by private enterprise. Thousands of houses were built there. Why cannot it be done now? And yet we see all these controls, so much so that our soldiers cannot get into the houses they bought on an agreement for sale, because of this infernal control system. I was in a number of houses th" other day, and I know the tenants under controls were making a profit out of them. Down in one basement one could operate a building business in a residential district. Then, there was a little bit of an attic in another house about twice the size of the top of this desk with cooking stoves. That is what happens under this rent control system and irksome controls. Remove them.
I suggest that some of these housing controllers in Ottawa who sit in the swivel chair-



CIV I,SET) EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Address

Mr. Church
[Stage Direction]
that is the way the hon. friend from Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) describes them-should go up and see some of those houses in our Canadian cities. Let them go and see what is going on. Why do they not have inspectors? Let them go to those homes and find out why returned soldiers cannot go into the houses they have bought on sale agreements and check up the abuse of the control system and huge profits,made by some tenants.
Why do they not remove these controls on labour and materials? They can build dozens of theatres in Toronto-dozens of moving-picture theatres. Yes, they can get lumber and building supplies for all that kind of thing. They can get plasterers, bricklayers and all the tradesmen they want for theatres. But they cannot get enough lumber and materials to build ordinar houses.
The mayor of Toronto has been complaining to Ottawa about this as have representatives from other municipalities. I am not referring to only one city, because I receive letters from all parts of Canada complaining about the same thing, the evils of rent control.
The time has now come to get at this housing problem, and do something about it. In 1988 the whole world suffered from social disorder in those countries that allowed it. Difficulties arose because of ham-stringing state control in some countries where social acts had led to great change. Let us see the cause and effect of all this. In 1938 half the world lived isolated behind controlled currency rates with no human intercourse beyond the confines of their own countries. There were state controls at home. Six years of the second world war broke down aggressive tyranny in Europe and Asia. Yet it is a fact that more of the whole world is living under state direction than when the war began. To-day two-thirds of the world are suffering from state isolation and restriction of the individual.
Some countries not touched by the war are affected by the isolation of their neighbours, with no human intercourse as yet. At the same time numerous bureaucratic officials are given visas and foreign currency to spend.
Then, a committee was appointed to look into the coal situation, and to bring about a national fuel supply. Away back in March, 1923, I first proposed a national coal supply so that all our coal might be mined under the British flag, including the maritimes, Alberta and Wales. Eventually this government adopted that suggestion, and large amounts of coal are being moved from the maritimes to the head of the lakes. The difficulty is to a great extent one of transportation. We have very heavy winters, and in view of that the
[Mr Church.]
time has come when something should be done to assure a steady coal supply, and not the coke now sold as coal from the United States.
We know that by a process of lease-lend British bases were given up from Newfoundland to British Guiana and at other points for the use of fifty old United States warships, on a lease of bases. Half of those warships were useless. Many of them had to be taken to dry dock during the battle of the Atlantic. Yet all those are charged against Britain. Why should those bases not be charged up to lend-lease? A lease of ninety-nine years, practically freehold, should be charged up to lend-lease; that is where it belongs, and the ninety-nine year lease cancelled. I say that because of those fifty old ships only a very few had any value. Britain's battle of the Atlantic saved millions of people in America from axis invasion.
Something should be done about this. The freedom of the air and of the seas is vital to the British empire, more vital to it than to any other country or group, for the defence of the British empire to a 'high degree depends upon the unmolested transport of goods and passengers from one quarter to another.
The British empire is indeed the only political unit whose existence depends entirely on air and sea-borne traffic. Its over-dependence on foreign trade increases its need for command of the air and of the seas in certain areas and of the force to maintain that command. The United States could dispense with foreign trade to a great extent, without any great sacrifice or vital threat to its existence. China and Soviet Russia are similarly placed. But the British empire, western Europe, South and Central America are dependent upon foreign trade, and therefore on freedom of the air and of the seas.
I object to all this wild talk about internationalism. And what about the giving up of British bases on the seven seas? Russia was not in the war for two years. As a matter of fact, Russia had a trade agreement with Germany. The United States was not in the war for two and a half years. Where would we have been had we to share all British bases in the seven seas at Aden, Gibraltar, the Cape, Hong Kong and Singapore? We would have had to remain neutral, too. Did you ever hear tell of such a thing? Have we heard of such a thing as giving up British bases to foreign countries? The war would have been won by Germany. Give foreign countries all the raw materials we can give. But sovereignty?-no. That is one of the matters I have discussed before.
In conclusion, I wish to say a word about our old ally, Russia. Let us not forget that

The Address-Mr. Picard
she was an able ally of ours. We must remember what she did in this war. As Mr. Churchill said when he spoke at Fulton and Richmond, and1 again in New York, the hope of the world is that Great Britain, the United States and Russia may work together and cooperate for the good of civilization and of the world in general in peace as they did so well in war. If we can carry on in that way, it would be far better than any league of nations.
Speaking last year, I referred to the league of nations. The only league of nations which was ever successful was the British empire. If we want to have internationalism, then let us start right there.	.
Russia believes that she is free to do as she likes in eastern Europe. She is not playing the game with her other allies. But I would ask hon. members not to forget that during the closing years of the first world war the Russian people were in the grip of a national revolution. The result was a humiliating surrender by the Russian forces to Germany at Brest-Litovsk, a surrender which would have permanently enslaved Russia to Germany if the United States, the British empire and France had not continued the war in spite of Russia's defection from the anti-German coalition.
At the present time she is not playing the game. But it is only a battle of nerves. I do not believe there will be another war. Russia wants security on her own terms in countries she has captured and invaded, and more room to reach the sea. She will not be happy until she gets it, and she intends to hold all she has obtained and reach out for more.
It will be recalled that on December 10, 1945, there was a meeting in Moscow between Mr. Bevin, Mr. Byrnes and the Russian officials. I believe they agreed to give Russia what she wanted in Japan; yes, five times more than she lost there in war forty years ago. Those two honourable secretaries agreed to support the puppet governments of Rou-mania and Bulgaria. All this was agreed without the dominions knowing anything about it.
Then, further, they agreed to everything that was done at Yalta. Who was present? It was Russia, the United States and Great Britain. They practically settled the peace of the world and the peace of Europe, even before the coming peace conference. It cannot be changed at that conference.
Then, what was done at Moscow? What did Mr. Bevin and Mr. Byrnes do? They went to work and left out France altogether, and instead of the big 5 -went back to 3 again -France should have the Ruhr valley ; she should have the Rhine, because twice in our 63260-11J
generation she has been invaded. Yet, as I have said, they agreed to recognize the Soviet puppet governments in Bulgaria and Rou-mania. They consented to exclude France from the treaty making in eastern Europe.
As Mr. Churchill has said, they did all this to aid Russia and to remove suspicion. True, Mr. Bevin did object to the eastern situation and the Dardanelles; but that had no effect at all, because Russia is bound to have authority and to give effect to her ideology. Communism will be revived by Russia in those invaded countries; there is no doubt about it. She is going to hang on to every foot of territory in Europe acquired with her army and navy. Mr. Churchill referred, when speaking in New York the other day, to the UNO or "you know who". We are at the parting of the ways. We may believe in miracles, but I think that Mr. Churchill deserves a great deal of credit for having placed the cards on the table and telling the people the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the aims of Russia. If we had had that kind of talk before this war, there would not have been a second war.
Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) in his trip around the speech from the throne, but there is one item in his remarks with which I differ particularly and I feel I must say a few words about it. The hon. member criticized and tried to ridicule our ambassadors and our diplomatic service. Petty criticism of that nature made by hon. members, just as that made a year or two ago by a newspaper correspondent of the expenses of our ambassadors, is a great disservice to the country. Canada is a great country emerging on the international scene and she must have a competent diplomatic service.
I saw the evolution of our diplomatic service during the years I was in contact with its members when on many occasions I accompanied the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe to imperial1 or international conferences. I think we have as good a staff of men as or in some cases even better than, the big powers. We should make life in the service more comfortable and free from worry and criticism. We should pay them more generously from the rank of third secretary up to that of ambassador. I hold no brief to speak for the personnel of the Department of External Affairs, but I think it is only fair to say the good I think of them especially when they have been doing such a good job.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is more responsible than anybody else for the
The Address-Mr. Picard

We know enough of these institutions to make it unnecessary for me to enter here into details of their functions and powers. I might be permitted, however, before I come to speak of what I consider the second way open to ensure the maintenance of peace, to give a few impressions I got while at the preparatory commission.	1
I have returned convinced that the delegates assembled in London were aware of the importance of making a success of the new organization and that they were all anxious to cooperate in the framing of institutions within which all nations may work to preserve their security and ensure better conditions for the world to live in
I am familiar, of course, only with the work of the preparatory commission as I was not present at the meetings of the assembly, and it is true that we were still in the elaboration stages, but that period was all the more important because then were drafted the regulations and were devised the means to put into effect the statutes enacted at San Francisco. It was constantly evident that any differences between delegates were motivated by a desire of each, according to his concepts, to ensure the security of his country and to prevent the possibility of peace being endangered by other nations. There were no sombre motives behind the objection of any country to the wording of a specific rule, but the eagerness to make sure that it would not work contrary to its purpose.
It would be wrong to assume, as certain people have insinuated, that the Soviet Union was aiming at rendering UNO inoperative when it pressed for certain amendments or objected to others. I am still convinced that it was as keen as the United Kingdom and the United States as well as Canada and any other nation to work out an instrument by which to render possible the putting into practice of the principles of the united nations charter.
The differences that exist between the Big Three and more especially between Britain and the Soviet Union, and that came into the open during the first session of the assembly and the security council, are an entirely different, matter, and I will touch upon them later in my remarks. They go far deeper than the setting up of the machinery needed for the establishment of a medium of intercourse among nations.
Somebody wrote in the press at the end of the first session:
UNO has deceived the hopes of humanity aspiring for a just and lasting peace; the result of this first experience is that union among the great powers has 'been compromised in London.
iMr. Picard.] ,
I think this statement is neither fair nor accurate. If there is a lack of union amongst the great powers, it cannot be attributed to the faults or deficiencies of UNO. It results from their lack of confidence in one another for the solution of problems which concern their vast conflicting interests.
I think on the contrary that there now exist well organized institutions which offer the best means devised to date to force the airing in the open of problems that may affect the peace of the world, whether these problems are presented in their true light or disguised in order to influence public opinion in other nations.
UNO constitutes the most advanced medium of regulating international relations ever agreed upon by the nations of the world. It is far from perfect, but we must give it our wholehearted support because it is one of our only hopes of succeeding to avoid conflict and therefore chaos.	[DOT]
Before I pass to the other part of my remarks, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the decision which he took before San Francisco to include in delegations members of all parties. It is essential that Canada's foreign policies shall have some sort of continuity. If unanimous agreement cannot be arrived at in each party, at least some people of culture and ability and a sense of responsibility can be made aware of what is going on and can transmit to their political friends the motives and the reasons for certain decisions being arrived at. I think we may at all times, without violation of our convictions, develop a national point of view whereby Canada, like the United States and many ' other nations, will be able to present a united front in foreign or international affairs. One sees now in England at the foreign office a staff of men, directed by Mr. Bevin, consisting of people of varying convictions on political and social matters. I believe that Mr. Bevin has brought to the British foreign office, through his- vitality, his energy, his vast intelligence, new life and new "pep" to an institution which was venerable but which, I will not say was in need of, but would welcome new blood and new life, which he surely has the personality to provide. The British delegation was of one party only, the government party. The United States had with their delegation a prominent republican lawyer who, though he has never been in politics, is an important influence in his party. I think that was a really wonderful departure, and one which will ensure harmony if the practice is maintained.

The Address-Mr. Picard
UNO, Mr. Speaker, represents the legal way, the nearest approach to the ideal way of establishing conditions conducive to a lasting peace, but it will be made workable and its success possible only if the second way to ensure the maintenance of peace in the world is resorted to
No matter how well have been devised the organizations whose aim it is to preserve peace, peace will be secure only if and when the nations who have the potentialities to wage war are determined not to wage war. Peace, and I do not mean by that the settlement of all contentious or litigious questions between small nations, but peace that is the absence of war and the establishment of decent relations among peoples, will be possible when the big powers have ironed out their difficulties and not before. Let us not fool ourselves; the real difficulties are not those that are brought into the open. Britain and the United States are not offended at Russia's prolonged stay in Iran because it is a violation of the sovereign rights of a small country, nor is the anxiety of the Soviets for Greek democracy the reason of their protest to the council over British occupation in Greece, and the same applies to Indonesia or Syria and Lebanon. The game is a game for positions on the chessboard of Europe, and the pawns are the strategic points each one is anxious to acquire control of or not to lose the effective control of.
It is evident that the Bevin^Vishinsky duel, however it may have appeared in press reports, was not a personal fight. Both talked for mighty empires, which are, respectively, Russia the second and Britain the third power of the world, whose interests are conflicting on many points of the globe.
Ideologically the British socialists would seem to be related to the Russian communists in this, that both derive their collectivist theories from Karl Marx and Engels. However, everywhere throughout the world to-day the proponents of these two theories of social administration are strongly opposed to one another. British socialists have constantly resisted the infiltration in their ranks of communist sympathizers. Attlee, Bevin, Morrison, and before them Ramsay MacDonald and Arthur Henderson, have always opposed communism, and even more state capitalism, which would seem to be the system now in force in the Soviet Union.
This antagonism has nothing to do, however, with the present conflict. It results, according to me, from the fear and the lack of confidence in one another of two states eager to assure their security, one of which tries to capitalize
on its victory to realize century-old dreams, while the other tries to prevent that in order to maintain unchallenged century-old privileges.
Let us consider objectively the situation of the three big powers.
Britain has, over a period of nearly three hundred years, built the most powerful empire since the Roman empire ; it has been through its mastery of the seas the only world power up to the beginning of this war. Its security was guaranteed, first by its fleet but also by the maintenance of a divided continental Europe where no state could absolutely dominate the others. During the course of the last 150 years this security has been, menaced by the Napoleonic adventure, by the German ascendancy, initiated by Bismarck and culminating in 1914 by the imperialist ambitions of Wilhelm II and finally by the nazi onslaught. On these three occasions England mobilized all its energies and succeeded in preventing invasion and, through coalition with other states, in vanquishing her enemies.
The alliance with Russia and Prussia brought about the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo; the Franco-British alliance, aided by the United States, Italy and Japan, won the first great war; the concerted efforts of Britain, the United States and Russia, assisted by all the united nations, have finally overpowered fascism and nazism.
After avoiding all these dangers, Britain succeeded, after each war except this one, in reestablishing in Europe conditions such that no state could by itself be a menace to world security for a time to come.
The establishment of coalitions or blocs of nations, in order to bring about a balance of power among the states of the continent, has been the best guarantee of Britain's security.
To-day, on the day following an Homeric fight from which she emerges much weaker and poorer, Britain sees on the continent a power stronger than herself, whose potentialities, despite its terrific losses, are not to bring quiet to the minds of British leaders.
During the course of the war, Britain accepted agreements intended to give Russia guarantees of security for the future which she judged indispensable. She accepted the Russian claims on the Baltic states and the settlement of the Polish problem. She recognized -that the Russian zone of influence should include Czechoslovakia, Roumania and Bulgaria. All this was probably dbne with reluctance and fear, but it had to be done. This fear no doubt grew when Yugoslavia and Albania came within the Russian sphere and when the Soviet ambitions began to resemble very closely those of Tzarist Russia.
The Address-Mr. Picard

The naval power of Britain, while guarding the safety of its communication lines, was the cause of its supremacy in the world and partly accounts for its wealth. She faces today a Russia getting more powerful. While she had always relied on the balance of power in Europe, she now foresees the Soviet Union dominating continental politics and approaching the North sea; she takes note of Russia's ambitions in the Mediterranean and the middle east and realizes that she may soon have a knife in her throat. This is why she appears determined to resist with energy any future Soviet expansion.
As to the Soviet Union, let us also consider her problem objectively. Twice during the last 150 years Russia had some of her provinces invaded and owed her salvation not only to her obstinate resistance but to the help received from maritime powers. Her security depends, above all, on her western frontiers. Russia has obtained and wants to maintain a sphere of influence in the states adjoining those frontiers.
' Whateyer may be the objections one has to communistic doctrines, one cannot deny that her past experiences justify Russia in ensuring that she has friendly neighbours. I cannot agree with the imposition by force of any form of government in a country, but these neighbouring countries were at one time or another during the war Russia's enemies, and as a winner she uses her rights to further her security and protect her borders.
The British seem to think that Russia's claim goes farther now than a mere anxiety or eagerness for security. There is evidently for a victorious state the temptation to live its dreams. Russia lacks outlets on warm waters. Her only ports free of ice year around are Murmansk on the Arctic ocean and Vladivostock on the sea of Japan.
The control of the Dardanelles by Turkey, the control of the eastern Mediterranean and of the Red sea by Britain, as well as the zone of British influence in Greece and Turkey paralyze Russia and prevent her from having, in all security, any access to the Mediterranean.
However, the Soviet Union has now by its influence in Yugoslavia and Albania a word to say on the Adriatic, and it might take away from the British, or render unsafe, the use of the natural harbour of Kotor on the Dalmatian coast.
The Americans appear less directly concerned with the European imbrogjio, but Russian power is not to reassure them. However, unless unforeseen events are precipitated, there are few points where Russian and

American interests are directly in conflict at the present time. But let us not forget that the United States have also considerable oil interests in the middle east and that their interests are tied up to a point with those of Britain, and it is highly improbable that they may remain neutral if war breaks out between Britain and Russia.
I may say, though, that Churchill's speech in Fulton, according to me has done more harm to the cause of British friendship in the United States than may be realized here. I was in New York at the time and came in contact with many people sympathetic to Britain who strongly objected to Churchill's speech. The general opinion on the street was: "Why should our sons die for the safeguard of British imperialism". And yet there is friendship for Britain in the United States. That speech was not timely or helpful. However, it is evident that, in the event of war, if the United States did not join Britain it. would face Russia the next day.
Soviet Russia dominating all Europe, succeeding to Great Britain in the control of the Mediterranean and the middle east and part of Asia, would be a terrific menace to the United States. The United States cannot remain aloof from the differences that crop up between Britain and the Soviets.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Peel that Bevin and Vishinsky spoke clearly and put their cards on the table. If they did, they were double-sided cards and only one side showed. There may have been-strong talk in the council and blunt answers, but I do not consider this an improvement over the polished language of old diplomacy. Calling anybody a liar is not considered acceptable in good company. I cannot find it better, far from it, when said around the green tables of diplomatic conferences.
When I say that they did not speak clearly I mean that they have spoken for the gallery. They have enunciated great principles and have built a case to influence world public opinion, but they have not shown their real game. They have spoken of the defence of minorities and of their respect for democratic principles, but they have not spoken of oil, or of tin and rubber, or of naval bases or of lines of communications.
I say and repeat that the present fights in the united nations organization are fights for position and that the real problems are debated in the secret reunions of the foreign secretaries or the discussions of their experts, and the real fight centres around the terms of the peace treaties that are being drafted.

The Address-Mr. Power
The treaty with Italy is, according to me, one of the bones of contention, not as to what will be abstracted from Italy but as to how the partition will be done. The Italian colonies and the Dodecanese islands offer probably the most difficulty.
The region of Trieste-Fiume is disputed by Italy and Yugoslavia. I believe that Britain favours as a solution the establishment of an international free port in Trieste, in the manner of the Hanseatic ports of the middle ages, so that it may serve all central Europe. The Russians must insist on giving most of the region to Yugoslavia, their friend, or, in the event of a free zone being established in Trieste, will ask for one in Salonika, and the British will oppose it.
Italian North Africa offers more problems; the Soviets want a base in Tripolitania; they also want one in Erythrea on the Red sea, as well as one of the islands of the eastern Mediterranean. The most that Britain might be ready to concede is to internationalize Tripoli, like Tangier.
Then, there are the' Dardanelles. The Russians since the days of Peter the Great have aimed to get control of them. Mr. Churchill the other day, in New York, was ever so scandalized at the idea that the Soviets want a fortress to control the straits. He thinks it is enough to give Russia assurance that the Dardanelles will be free in war as in peace, under an international authority, and assimilates the Dardanelles to the Rhine and the Danube. The Soviets assimilate the straits to three others, two of which, Gibraltar and Suez, are controlled by Britain, while the third, Panama, is controlled by the United States. Would thd~ United States and Britain be ready to internationalize effectively these three gateways of the world? I doubt it. I am not saying this because I sympathize with coipmunistic views, nor because I want to defend Russia, far from it, but because I want to be objective.	,
In conclusion, I may say the ideal way to ensure the maintenance of peace would be through a world parliament, and failing this we have in the united nations organization a workable instrument.
Second, peace will be secure if the Big Three agree to talk plainly and compose their differences and have enough confidence in one another to accept compromises and adjust world privileges to the new relative status of power amongst themselves.
In common language, the question for the big powers is, do we share the spoils equitably and then, when our positions are strong and secure, do we become virtuous and live under 63260-12
international law as the reformed gangster often does in national life, or do we start fighting amongst ourselves as to who gets what?
Allow me to conclude on a more idealistic note by quoting the words of Nicholas Politis, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece and one of the world's most famous international jurists, written in 1924:
We must now realize that the era of compulsory justice in international .affairs has started. After so many centuries of crises that at times divided them and at times united them, modern nations have definitely adopted the ideal of justice that, since so long ago, an enlightened humanity has strived without avail to attain. Slowly, timidly, they are bringing it about. The first hurdles have been cleared, another has just been undertaken.
The ultimate aim is still far away. There lies ahead a long road strewn with obstacles. Incessant efforts will be needed before the work can be completed.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to. speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I am breaking a rule of twenty-five years standing in my own political life. I do so because I fear that the matter I desire to discuss this evening may not be discussed later in the session, and also because I wish to take advantage of the kindly intimation by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that he felt it was a salutary thing if his actions in matters extraordinary, such as those we shall discuss to-night, should be criticized in the House of Commons, perhaps in the view that should other occasions arise under similar circumstances the man charged with the responsibility of putting into effect legislation, procedure and methods similar to those which have been put into effect in these' circumstances, might hesitate to some extent before doing so.
I am fully aware that what I shall say tonight will not be popular either in this house or, where it means the most, at home. I shall be charged on the one hand with biting the hand that fed me, and on the other hand with being the reddest of red communist. I do not think I need say to this house or to those who in all probability will follow me and accuse me of being a friend of the communists, that by education, by tradition and by the religion to which I belong I have opposed nazism, fascism and communism; and it is because I fear that there is a tinge of some of these isms in that which I propose to criticize tonight that I rise in my place on this occasion.
Following along the lines of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the lines of the excellent discourse by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), I pro-
REVISED EDITION*
The Address-Mr. Power

pose to divide the matter which is being discussed into two parts, the international and the internal. Internationally I have the fullest confidence in our present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King). I believe he will handle this matter without sabre-rattling, without war-mongering, with dignity and in the best interests of Canada. With regard to the Canadian element let me say this. I yield to no man in my hatred and contempt for those who may be found guilty of this the most heinous in the whole category of crimes. As the hon. member for Calgary West said, it is only by accident that they are not being accused of treason. They are being accused of something else; if they are found guilty will be found guilty of the lowest form of criminality, of having betrayed the secrets of their country to a foreign power; and the people of Canada will expect swift and exemplary justice to be meted out to them, as they are entitled to the greatest and swiftest measure of justice that our criminal code and out statutes provide.
I should like now to say a word with respect to the legislation itself. May I digress here to say that I freely acquit the Minister of Justice of any desire to mislead when he told the house there were no secret orders in council. I have known the Minister of Justice for twenty-five years. I have admired him as a citizen; I have admired him as a lawyer, as a man of honesty and integrity. I admired him fifteen or twenty years ago when, I think as president of the Canadian Bar Association, a citizen in no way involved in politics, he went out of his way, in an address which was often quoted in this house, to defend the liberties of the subject and to stand up for a constitutional form ,of government in this country.
Let us see what has happened in the way of legislation ; but first perhaps I had better read the magna charta. The most important and most famous article in the magna charta is this:
No freeman shall he arrested, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, banished, or hurt in his person or property, nor will we-
Meaning the king.
an person or through our officers lay hands upon him save by the lawful judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. ... We will' to no one sell, deny or delay right or justice.
Let me place alongside of that the order in council, P.C. 6444 of October 6, 1945:
L The acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice, if satisfied that with a view to preventing any particular person from communicating secret and confidential information' to an agent of a foreign power or otherwise acting in any manner prejudicial 'to the public safety 
or the safety of the state it is necessary so to do, may make an order that any such person be interrogated and/or detained in such place and under such conditions as he may from time to time determine.
2. Any person shall, while detained by virtue of an order made under this order, ibe deemed in legal custody.
Those are the two documents, the magna charta and this order in council, which I think it is relevant we should compare. In his address on March 19, to be found on page 89 of Hansard, the Minister of Justice himself said:
I told them-
I think he meant the counsel for the commission.
-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 [DOT]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 ns if that were the provision, and that there would have to be a -recomemnda-[DOT]tion from some organ of the judicial authority to make me feel that I should exercise those powers.
Later on, in the course of the same address the minister repeated that he acted with a great deal of reluctance and hesitancy. I have here also the report of the committee on civil liberties, of the Canadian Bar Association. I am not going to read it all, but may I read this:
The affirmation of that right-
That is to say, the right of personal freedom. -has evolved some standard principles which have acquired almost sacred significance in the mind of the citizen:
(1)	The right not to be detained' >at the mere arbitrary will of the crown, or any government, or administrative authority;
(2)	The right not 'to be 'arrested, unless under the authority of a magistrate's warrant, issued on a' complaint diuly executed, and based on the ordinary law;
(3)	The right, when under suspicion, or arrest, or sentence, not to be coerced to give any information or evidence .against oneself, or to testify
in one's own case.
Those are the principles laid down by the committee on civil liberties of the Canadian Bar Association.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: What date?


Charles Gavan Power: It is to be found in the minutes of proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association held at Toronto on August 30 and 31 and September 1, 1944.
I should like to quote one more authority, which states:

The Address-Mr. Power
Now let us come to another point, which I wish particularly to stress. I refer to the right set out in magna eharta that no man shall be dispossessed of his rights without the lawful judgment of his peers under the law of the land; not the law as made by the governor in council, not the law ais made by some unnamed and as yet unexisting body, but the law of the land as known to everyone. It is an essential principle of liberty and freedom that the law of the land should be known, that it should be so known that every man as he runs may read. The. law should not be something which is to make its appearance in the Canada Gazette after some board or governor in council, not parliament, has passed a regulation; it is something that should appear in the statutes of the country.
That is the Right Hon. AVilliam Lyon Mackenzie King, Hansard, April 19, 1934, at page 2342. And with those authoritative statements I rest my case against what would appear to be a revocation of magna eharta, after 731 years of existence.
The point which I wish to make and which I consider important is that of the precedent which has been created in these cases. I am not sure about Great Britain. I am not even sure of the precedents created under the defence of Canada regulations made during the war. But I feel assured that no time in peace-time Canada have we ever had any such legislation as is contained in the order in council, parts of which I have just read.
The two hon. gentlemen who have spoken for the government in this debate, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, are men of high reputation for integrity, for broad humanity,, for tolerance, for liberalmindedness and for a great regard for the personal liberty of their fellow citizens. As will appear from what the Minister of Justice has said, they have acted with deliberation, with hesitancy and, possibly, with a great deal of reluctance. No doubt they feel that they can exercise those extraordinary powers which were conferred upon them by the order in council with discretion and with the least possible injury to their fellow men.
But may I point' out that neither of these men has any guarantee of immortality. Neither is there any guarantee in our political life that the political wheel of fortune may not some day turn. And the numbers brought up on that political wheel of fortune may not always be the numbers of men in whom this country has the same faith and confidence as it has in the men who are now at the helm of affairs.
The hon. friend for Calgary West spoke about the book, "It Can't Happen Here." I think he was about to continue some discussion about that book when his attention was drawn to another point. Perhaps he was about to point out that in most totalitarian countries, or at least in the two of which we 63260-124
know the most, Germany and Russia, the majority of the people do not rule, or at least, did not rule. The majority of the people in Germany, we are told, were not nazis; and it has been repeated time And again here that the majority of the people in Russia do not belong to the communist party.
Nevertheless the men at the head of that party are the men who are in charge of those countries. They are in charge of the administration of justice; they are in charge of executive power. And it would appear to be from these men and from the kind of government they have that we obtain some idea of the methods which appear to have been followed) in this case.
"It Can't Happen Here", but it requires no great stretch of the imagination to paint what, to some, may be an extreme case, when misguided, intolerant, wilful and fanatical men might be at the head of affairs in this country, men who might confuse the security of the state with their own political security, men who might believe that their political opponents are plotting against the security of the I state because, forsooth, they are only opposing those measures which are being proposed by the heads of the state.
There have been harsh words spoken in the house and country about bankers, trust companies, cartels and monopolies. It might very well be that, through a turn of the wheel of fortune, the opponents of those who participate in monopolies and cartels might some day be in power and might believe firmly and conscientiously that the general security of the state, because of cartels with foreign nations, is seriously endangered.
Some of those very people who to-day applaud what is going on might find that they cheered to-day but they wept to-morrow. It is not without the recollection of hon. members-certainly not more than fifteen or twenty years ago-that a great American running as candidate for President of the United States was defeated because millions of his fellow citizens believed wrongly and wickedly, but perhaps sincerely, that his love of his country was vitiated by his allegiance to another country and to another ideology. Religious intolerance can bring people a long way. If religious intolerance ever came to the places of power and authority in this country I would not care to think of what might happen to those who opposed it. Precedents are dangerous things, and I regret far more than I can say that a precedent has been created in this case. These men could rely on the procedure and the approval by parliament, as
The Address-Mr. Power

parliament will approve, of the legislation and of the procedure which has been followed in this case.
I should like to have the time and perhaps the capacity to analyse something of the public attitude arising out of this event. I admit freely that in the popular mind the government is doing absolutely the right thing. I do not controvert or deny that for one moment; I only regret it. I feel that fifty years ago when we were closer to the great struggles which had taken place for human liberty or freedom it would have been more difficult for a government to proceed as this government has proceeded in this case. I wonder if the modem love of speed, efficiency, the cult of success in business, in politics, yes and in sport; the idea of winning at all costs; I wonder if that has not been so thoroughly impregnated into the thinking of our people that they are perhaps apt to forget what some of us believe to be eternal principles in their desire to see something done and done quickly.
There is the idea that we must fight fire with fire, that if these men had been in Russia perhaps it is more than likely that they would have been taken out and shot, and they should be here. We have fought a victorious war after four years. We have talked glibly of the new order which was to follow it, and it almost appears to me as though we the victors had taken on the manners and customs of the vanquished.
As to the accused themselves, I think I said I have no sympathy whatsoever for them, and I have not. But when I read the report of the members of the commission that some of these men, in admitting their guilt in giving the secrets of their country away, pleaded that they had another loyalty, a loyalty presumably, if not to another nation at least to another ideology, I wondered whether all of us are not to some extent responsible, not for these accused but for the fact that there are discordant loyalties in this country.
My hon. friend, the leader for the Social Credit party (Mr. Low), touched1 on the point when he said, or when I took him to say, that before we go too deeply into international affairs we should first try to become a nation on: our own, we should first try to develop a nationality of our own. I am perhaps one of those who smiled in a bit of derision at what was considered to be somewhat tawdry patriotism when reference was made to 100 per cent Americans. Perhaps it would have been good for us if we had tried to develop more 100 per cent Canadians. Some great

Irishman has said that if he were permitted to write the songs of a people he would not care who wrote their laws.
During the course of the war I had occasion to attend a large number of concerts, singsongs and so on in the camps of the various armed services. What songs did we hear? We heard "Annie Laurie", the "Rose of Tralee", "There'll always be an England". Did we ever hear any song about Canada? Have we ever tried to develop a Canadian spirit which would make those people stand abashed at the very thought of betraying their country? Our educational institutions are at fault. We are at fault in this house for developing loyalties, whether they be to other lands or whether they be to certain sections of our land.


Mr. POULIOT:: Who forbade your bands playing "0 Canada"?


Charles Gavan Power: Not me.


Jean-François Pouliot: One of your men.


Charles Gavan Power: That may be, and I shall be quite willing to answer my hon. friend at some other time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall have an opportunity to do that too.


Charles Gavan Power: We have not developed as we should have developed a Canadian spirit. We have not developed it in our schools or in our colleges. Until such time as we do we cannot expect and we cannot hope to have in this country the right kind! of loyalty to our institutions and to our nation. When every man in this country has a loyalty to the country as boundless as are the acres of this country, when he is as much at home in Halifax as be is in Vancouver, in Quebec as he is in Toronto, when we have no such thing as sectionalism, then I believe it will be more difficult for wilful men to betray their country.
I should like to speak of one more aspect of this' discussion. I wish to refer to it from the point of view of liberalism, that is liberalism in the broadest sense, in the sense in which every political leader of this house has at some time or another and probably still is a believer in liberal thought and liberal principles rather than in the narrow sense of those who sit only on one side of the house; in the sense in which the hon. member for Calgary West is a liberal. I refer to liberalism which is defined as being a struggle for liberty, personal, civil, political, physical, social, economic, domestic, national and international. It is a struggle for the rights of the people against privilege and privileged interests and classes. The great victories of liberalism during the past century have been along the

The Address-Mr. Gauthier (Portneuj)
lines of constitutional reform. The Liberal party believes in individual liberty and in the rights of the citizen.	-
Amongst all the leaders of liberalism in this country there has never been any greater than the present leader, the Prime Minister of this country. I know he shares my views of liberalism for from long association with him I know his views on these matters. I know with what hesitancy and reluctance he must have acquiesced in what has gone on. I had hoped that he would have ignored that hesitancy and reluctance and would, when pressed, have refused to allow such legislation to be placed in the records of the people of Canada. He has taken a position with which I cannot agree. I respect his decision, as I hope 'he will respect my view.
As for me, brought up in an atmosphere wherein a framed photograph of magna charta was on almost every wall, accompanied with a warrant for the execution of Charles I, and steeped through my reading in the traditions of the martyrs of liberty and freedom, I cannot wish to turn back the pages of history seven hundred years and repeal magna charta. I cannot by my silence appear to approve even tacitly what I believe to have been a great mistake on the part of the government. If this is to be the funeral of liberalism I do not desire to be even an honorary pall-bearer at the funeral, and I do not wish by not taking part in this debate to give silent approval to the procedure which has taken place.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, following the
example of many honourable members who have spoken since the opening of this debate, I wish, with your permission, to congratulate the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) and the honourable member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters) who have respectively moved and seconded the address. They have discharged a duty which was certainly not onerous and their task was pleasant to fulfil. As was evidenced by the compliments they have received, their performance has been found satisfactory by nearly all the members of this house.
When I see you, Mr. Speaker, occupying the chair of the one we are agreed to call first commoner, you can readily imagine what memories are brought back to my mind and to my heart. You surely can guess that I see you as a young schoolboy, striving industriously to develop your character in the class-room, in the recreation and study rooms of that old institution, *>7enerable among all, the Quebec seminar}7.
It is because I was once a classmate of yours. I was not surprised to hear you call out, at the very beginning and with the *greatest ease in the world: "Order", because even in those days, you used to shout your terrible cry of "Silence, gentlemen", with as much vehemence. You have simply adopted a different term.
We then found ourselves members of the Quebec Legislative Assembly, where we won our political spurs and where we had the pleasure and the privilege of sitting with a man whose fine sense of propriety we valued very highly. A few years later, we were sitting on the floor of the House of Commons, still followers of the same party. Then I left for a short trip and returned just in time to see you occupy the Speaker's chair. Although I don't envy your position, knowing the various duties it entails. I was highly pleased by your elevation to that high position, and I am still very glad of it. Among the members of the Legislative Assembly with whom we were sitting at that time, some have passed from the provincial to the federal arena, to the House of Commons, like yourself, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. McDonald) and myself, and to the Senate, the Hon. Senators David, Bouchard and Nicol. Although we may at first have found it hard to become accustomed to this change-after being used to the spirit of good fellowship of the Legislative Assembly-we are now getting used to the atmosphere of the House of Commons. And now, thanks to the kind cooperation of all hon. members of this house, whatever may be the language we use, we are inclined to find the atmosphere of the House of Commons nearly as pleasant as that of the Legislative Assembly, but I am not as yet so sure of that.
I do not see the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. 'Fournier).


Mr. DECHENE:: He is not at his desk, but he is in the house.


Pierre Gauthier: I see him now and I
take the liberty of telling him briefly what the electors of the county of Portneuf expect of him at the present time.
In 1938, I believe, a certain sum had been voted for the erection of a post-office building at Donnacona; plans were drawn and he would have but to say the word for the construction of this post-office to be started next summer. The amount involved is not very high and I have no doubt that the minister's consent will be given with the kindness he usually
f74	COMMONS
The Address

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuj)
displays when granting our electors a favor.
Besides, almost at the mouth of the Portneuf River, which is navigable up to a certain point, certain protection works would be needed to prevent closing the highway which runs from Portneuf Station to Portneuf Village, uniting those two parishes. These small requests could be granted at little cost to the government and I cannot see how the hon. the minister can turn down the member for Portneuf.
Since the beginning of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I have listened most carefully to speeches made in regard to the important problem with which the government was faced, namely the very contentious matter of the discovery of a spy ring in Canada.
There is one thing that I have particularly noticed. Not a single member of this house has any sympathy for these hirelings of the Moscow embassy or for the communist doctrine. Although no one has any sympathy for them, in the matter of technicalities, details and particulars, criticism has been levelled at the Right Hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and. at the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). No one has any sympathy for those spies but some feel that they have been treated too harshly.


Joseph Miville Dechene: It might please them if
we were to decorate those people.


Pierre Gauthier: However, I
know that some have been arrested and released on bail, and, after all, they were spies. In England, bail was refused1 to Dr. May. In Canada, things are different. As I am not a lawyer, I cannot discuss matters of technicalities but I know that when a man goes into the woods or the jungle, if he possesses the instinct of self-preservation, he will have brought with him some weapon to defend himself and when a wild animal springs at him to devour him, he does not argue, he does not plead for mercy, he asks no permission but he simply shoots it to save his own life. Is it what we are doing in Canada? This is what Canada is doing.
I cannot sympathize with spies. It may be argued that they have not yet been declared guilty. That is possible. But I will not believe that the Mounted Police, of whom so much good has been said in this house, have

recommended such a decision to the Right Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) unless they had proofs. That is preposterous. I repeat, we are now dealing with communists. Unfortunately, some of our leaders and politicians often lose sight of that fact. Many members of this house forget to take-up the communist problem as it should be approached. We must not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate aim of communism is universal ideological revolution. Whether Stalin or others are at the helm of the Russian state, they are communists who hanker for the advent of universal revolution. They know how to go about it.
Indeed, this is not the first time I treat this subject, Mr. Speaker. Here is what I said, ten years ago:
Providence has countenanced the existence of classes differing on the -intellectual, financial and social levels. It -is wishful thinking to _ believe that -all minds are equal-, all intellects similarly brilliant, all qualities universally distributed *and -apparent to the same degree in every individual.
I was referring to the levelling of classes, a principle very dear to Karl Marx.
It is -those who tried to bring mankind to believe -that it-he -contrary could be true who have become the promoters of the socialist doctrine, which -is the first gateway to -the great communist structure.
I said that ten years ago.
-Glass struggles have been -their first -activities. The first international w-as founded during the first years of the second half of tlie_ 19th century. on the occasion of -a world f-air held in London. Heralded by Karl Marx's appeal- Workers from -all -countries of the world, unite! -socialist and communistic agitation- began-. _
To -achieve its objective, the neo-messianic school to which Heine and Marx belonged strove to substitute materialism -for the -religious ideals of -a whole race.
That is of the whole Jewish race.
And that was done -as far -as possible in the silence of cells where the communistic poison flowed freely.
Ever since those days, communism has kept up its propaganda. To-day, that propaganda is better, stronger and is carried on more insidiously, and the members of that party are more important. They must undoubtedly know the truth of the words of a great Spanish prelate: "Give the unfortunate an illusion; supply hotheads with a pretext, and you will- have a revolution." And upon such ground the communist ideology is active, be it in Ottawa, in the whole of Canada, or elsewhere. I must therefore protest when members, after saying that they have no sympathy for communist spies, dwell on technicalities and finally claim that -the rights of individuals have been in-

The Address-Mr. Gauthier (Portneuj)
fringed, that the citizens' liberty has been curtailed. It is inconceivable! There cannot be two weights or two measures. I also said:
_ The years slipped by, .and then oame the third international which slew the czars and is trying to upset the political economy of the whole world. Their hard work is never done by their armed forces but by cells concealed under various designations which display feverish .activity and .an astonndingily perfected organization.
In this matter of espionage, we have seen how well they work. Thanks to one of their own, we have beep warned of their intrigues and we have found out how much they had learned of our secrets relating to purely Canadian inventions. That is how they work. I wonder why we should display such unwarranted tactfulness, why we should put off action and bewail the harsh methods adopted in dealing with spies. That is my personal opinion, Mr. Speaker; I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but that is the conclusion I have reached after reading and study, after living through two wars and an intervening period which was torn by eighteen conflicts and during which the theories of advanced socialism and communism have gained a great deal of ground. Some people say that communism is not as bad as is claimed. Let us see what a communist has to say. His name is Berdiaeff. I quote from the book entitled "The Man of 1936 in Soviet Russia", by Helen Iswosky.
Berdiaeff has clearly shown, writes the 'author, an a recent work, the essential, .difference which characterizes the Marxist concept of liberty . . .
Listen to this; I quote:
To achieve .liberty, he says, for .a communist, means to achieve strength in .a collective social movement, and transform life collectively . . . We must .achieve strength .and transform life in .a given manner, .having a fixed conception of truth and .a fixed doctrine. This liberty is subject to the dictatorship of .a .given ideology, which cannot be changed one iota. The communistic freedom does not grant any liberty to those who .refuse to accept the only doctrine, the only creed that can win salvation -and deprives its .enemies of all human rights.
Now listen to Boukharine. He is quoted by the same author. I ask every Christian in the house to listen to what Boukharine has to say:
It is ridiculous, says Boukharine, to think of God in the same way as devout old women. It is not man that has been created in. God's image, but it is God that is created to man's image; we have no need of Him . . . Since man has fully achieved his worth, a human society, happy and creative, constitutes for us ian aim in itself and does not need consecration, from divine idols.
This is a communist, speaking. And we should stand unafraid, in this country, of such ideas, of this ideology, whose agents are at work in our midst, trying to steal our secrets?
And why should they steal them? Not to hide them somewhere else, but so that others may use them in the event of another war.
Mr. Speaker, a man by the name of Churchill recenty made in the United States a speech that was strongly criticized by Generalissimo Stalin and was even criticized across the border. Before the Second World War, Churchill had told us how strong was the nazi-fascist ideology; he had also warned the world of the magnitude of communist ideology. Over there, no one heeded his word; however, untiring in his efforts, he now sounds a further warning.
I am not criticizing his speech; I am glad he made it and I hope Canada will wake up and that the democracies, the true democracies, not those that are governed by dictators, but the real democracies, those that have gone through the great test of the war just ended, will eventually join together to achieve a second victory, a real one this time, the hardest but the most important, the victory of ideology.
A country may be vanquished in the field, but its ideologies stand forever. It is thus that nazism still subsists in Argentina and Germany, fascism is still retrenched in Spain and, as every one knows it has not been extirpated from Italy. This is evidenced by the fact that Giannini has just formed a new party, called the "total man" party by the British, the "parti de l'homme complet", by the French, and the "uomo guadun que" party by the Italians. In no more than two weeks, he has recruited over 200,000 supporters. This is proof that ideologies are never eradicated.
A while ago, a speaker stated that fire must be fought with fire. I say that to put a fire out, it must be smothered by a sufficient quantity of water. I do not concur in the communist ideology. Some may think that I am still frightened-to borrow the words of the former member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen)-at the thought of the communist bogey; not at all, it is a question of principle for me; we must at all costs avoid an imminent danger. Are we going to beat about the .bush and stop at technicalities when we are dealing with espionage, on the pretense that spies might have been treated too harshly. I am of those who want the government to exercise due vigilance and who demand that these spies be punished if they are found guilty of this crime.
I am closing, Mr. Speaker. A short while ago, I heard the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) say that Canada, unlike other countries, lacked impressive songs to
176	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf)
stir the patriotism of its people. I do not know any songs in English, but I am familiar with very many in the French language. I will mention only a few, such as "O Canada, mon pays, mes amours" (O Canada, my beloved native land), known and sung by all little French Canadians; they live in the Province of Quebec, which, for them, stands as the whole of Canada, but they may be heard as far as the Pacific Ocean. Among other songs, "0 Carillon" keeps forever vivid in our minds the glorious memory of our past; "Vive la Canadienne," which has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis). These are songs that keep our patriotism alive and if there are no such songs in English, there is only one thing to do, namely, find a good English version of "O Canada"; it is the most beautiful and most patriotic song that can be found to reconcile the ideals of all the races that make up this country.
I am through, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to read for the benefit of all members the prayer that is said in the assembly of one of the United States, but I will do so some other time, as it is late and I do not want to delay the adjournment of the house.
I thank the honourable members for their attention. Again, may I say that I spoke for myself and that once convinced of the justice of a cause, I do not easily change my mind.


James Horace King: It is the privilege of the hon. member to adjourn the debate if he so wishes.


Pierre Gauthier: No, I have just about concluded my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Maclnnis the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 22, 1946.