1947-06-05

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mrs. Strum be substituted for that of Mr. Jaenieke on the special committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave of the house to move, seconded by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the position in which some 500 veterans of the city of Montreal now find themselves after having used their gratuities and reestablishment credits for the purchase of motor cars to be used as taxicabs and in the formation of an association known as the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal, which was organized and directed by one Leopold Ferland, while an official of
[Mr. Archibald.!
the Montreal office of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in such a manner that the veteran members are in grave danger of losing both their gratuities and reestablishment credits and thereby their opportunity of becoming reestablished and rehabilitated into civilian life.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for being kind enough to send me a copy of his motion a few minutes before I entered the house. I have considered the motion of the hon. gentleman to adjourn the house in order to discuss the position in which 500 veterans of the city of Montreal now find themselves after having used their gratuities and reestablishment credits for the purchase of motor cars to be used as taxi cabs and in the formation of an association known as the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal, which was organized and directed by one Leopold Ferland. I would remind hon. members that, according to standing order 31, when an hon. member asks for the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance the idea is to adjourn the house in order to give an opportunity to the house to debate the matter and find ways of relieving the situation. It is not so much the urgency of the question which should enter into consideration as the urgency of the debate on the question. The matter which the hon. member wants the house to discuss is actually before the courts of Montreal. The matter is sub judice, and all hon. members know that a matter which has been referred to the courts should not be discussed in the house. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member.


George Stanley White: I
understand that Your Honour has ruled my motion out of order on the ground that the matter is before the courts?


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. According to the rules, the Speaker may refuse a motion to adjourn the house if he believes that the matter to be considered is not urgent for debate. I do not rule it out of order but, as has been done in the past, I do not think there is any urgency for debate since it is before the courts.


George Stanley White: When Your Honour spoke a moment ago I understood you to say that the motion was out of order because the matter was before the courts. If the motion is ruled out of order on that ground, then I should like to rise to a' point of order.

Questions


James Horace King: I have already said to the hon. gentleman that in those cases where the Speaker decides that the matter is not urgent-


George Stanley White: I
only want to be clear. Do I understand that my motion is ruled out on the ground that the matter is not urgent, or is it ruled out on the ground that it is before the courts?


James Horace King: The hon. member knows very well that the decision of the Speaker is not debatable. If it is the desire of hon. members to appeal from the decisions of former Speakers who have ruled that wThen the Speaker refuses a motion to adjourn the house because there is no urgency, there is no appeal, they are free to do so.


George Stanley White: I
do not know yet on. what, ground you have ruled it out.
Mr.. SPEAKER: I have tried to express myself clearly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: I have suggested that if hon. members believe that they should appeal my decision, they are free to do so.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May we have the reasons for your decision before the appeal is directed?


James Horace King: I do not see any reason for saying anything more. I said that the motion could not be accepted because I do not see any urgency, since the matter is before the courts. It is well known, especially to lawyers, that when a case has been referred to the courts it is sub judice and should not be discussed.


George Stanley White: On a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Stanley White: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have ruled me out of order on the ground that the matter is before the courts. My point of order is this: had I been allowed to proceed with the motion I would not have referred to any proceedings that might be before the courts. The only matter to which I would have referred is the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which certainly is not before the courts, and the actions of an official of that department.


James Horace King: Order. I wonder if I should! add anything to what I said a few minutes ago. I still insist that the motion of the hon. member that the position in which
500 veterans of the city of Montreal now find themselves after having used their gratuities and reestablishment credits for the purchase of motor cans to be used as taxi cabs and in the formation of an association known as the veterans' taxi owners association is a matter before the courts at the present time. I do not accept the motion and I will ask the house to proceed with its business.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. NICHOLSON:: Of the 643 housing units completed by Housing Enterprises of Canada, how many rent at (a) $40 per month; (b) more than $40 but $50 or less; (c) more than $50 but $60 or less; (d) more than $60 but $75 or less; (e) more than $75 but $85 or less?


Mr. McILRAITH:: As of April 30, 1947: (a) 9; (b) 506; (c) 124; (d) 4; (e) nil.


PENSION COMMISSION-MONTREAL OFFICE
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Who is in charge of the office of the Canadian pension commission at 379 Common street, Montreal ?
2.	What is his annual salary?
3.	What are his duties?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	The senior pension medical examiner for the Montreal district, Dr. Allan Edgar Thompson.
2.	$5,040.
3.	He is the representative of the commission in the Montreal district. As such, he is responsible for the medical examination of all pensioners and applicants for pension; obtaining special reports and other related information when indicated; diagnosis and written description of the disease or injury, and estimating the assessment of degree of disability; and such administrative and other related duties as may be required by the commission.


S.S. &quot;EMPEROR&quot; STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT ON STRANDING AND SINKING OF VESSEL IN LAKE SUPERIOR ON JUNE 4
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Transport to the S.S. Emperor disaster on lake Superior the day before yesterday and to ask what action has been
Privilege-Mr. Low

taken to have an inquiry held by the wreck commissioner. I refer the minister to what has appeared in the press of yesterday and today from Port Arthur. There are no aids to navigation or life-saving stations on the great lakes. In 1928 I brought up in the house the necessity of providing aids to navigation and life-saving stations for the protection of life on the great lakes. We have to rely on United States life-saving stations, as in the disaster to Canadian seamen on this lake in 1928. I should like to know what action is being taken.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether the hon. gentleman has read the report of the accident, but if he had I am sure he would not have asked that question, at least not phrased in the manner in which it was. I expected that one such question would be asked today and I have prepared a statement.
The S.S. Emperor left Port Arthur about 11.30 p.m. on June 3, eastward bound, loaded with ore. In the early hours of the morning of the 4th, at approximately five o'clock she struck Canoe rocks, a submerged rock reef three and a half miles west of Blake Point light, Isle Royale, lake Superior, and broke in two.
According to the information at present available, two boats were lowered, one of which was swamped when the steamer went down.
The United States lighthouse tender Kimball, which was in the vicinity, received the distress signal from the Emperor at 5.15 a.m. and arrived at the scene of the casualty at 5.50 a.m., or about thirty-five minutes after the distress signal was picked up. Though exact information as to weather visibility at the time is not yet available, it is understood that the weather was good, and that the sea was comparatively smooth. The Kimball rescued twenty-one survivors and recovered the body of a woman. They were taken into Fort William. A further search was made and another woman's body was found and landed at Fort William by the Kimball on the night of Wednesday, the 4th instant. In addition to a thorough search of the area by the Kimball and two other small vessels of the United States lighthouse service, a coast guard plane made a thorough search of the area but no further survivors or bodies have been found.
Captain W. N. Morrison, Examiner Masters and Mates, of this department, is in Port Arthur at the moment holding a preliminary inquiry into the casualty.


Thomas Langton Church: There are no Canadian
life-saving stations on the upper great lakes.


James Horace King: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: With all due respect, Your Honour, as Speaker Lenthall said when Charles I came in, that he had neither eyes to see nor ears to hear but as the house gave him utterance, so having eyes to see and ears to hear, the house does nothing about this matter.	[DOT]



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. 1 have in my hand a copy of the Ottawa Citizen of this morning, which contains under the heading, "Charges R.C.M.P. With Inciting to Break Law," a report of a meeting that was held by the Ottawa Civil Liberties Association in this city last night, at which the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) is reported to have discussed racial prejudice. In the course of his discussion he is reported to have said:
There had been a number of discriminatory acts against Jews, Negroes, Japanese and Chinese in Canada recently. "These were isolated incidents but they point to a trend that is working against our fundamental freedoms."
These acts occurred all across Canada, even in Alberta which has a bill of rights containing "all the rights one could possibly think of." "There they have another bill whereby a Hut-terite cannot live closer than forty miles from another Hutterite."
The part of the reported statement which is the subject of my protest at this time is this, which appears in quotation marks in the newspaper report:
"There they have another bill whereby a Hutterite cannot live closer than forty miles from another Hutterite."
The hon. member for Spadina was evidently referring to Alberta. His reported statement is entirely false; and if the report is what the hon. member actually said, then, of course, only one answer could be given. If it is not what he said, I contend that it is damaging not only to the hon. member for Spadina but to the government of Alberta and this whole dominion.
An hon. MEMBER:: Where is the question of privilege?


Mr. LOW:: Just hold your horses.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows perfectly well that questions raised on the

Inquiries oj the Ministry
orders of the day must be brief and to the point. I have always allowed a great deal of latitude to leaders of the opposition parties, but I must ask the hon. member not to take up too much time. I would suggest that he state his question now.


Solon Earl Low: I will state it briefly. I contend, sir, that the reported statement of the hon. member for Spadina casts a reflection on the government of Alberta and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


Solon Earl Low: Do not be in such a hurry, you fellows over there. You use up plenty of time. If there is one group in this house that is against freedom of speech it is the one over there.
I contend also that this reported statement of the hon. member for Spadina casts a personal reflection on me. As the minister in the Alberta government who was responsible for putting through the original bill I feel that a have a grievance. At the last session of the Alberta legislature, a bill was passed amending the act I had sponsored through the legislature. This later bill provided for the orderly settlement of Hutterite colonies in Alberta.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. leader of the Social Credit party, but he will understand that it is the duty of the Speaker of the house to apply the rules. I would ask him to collaborate with me. I have allowed him considerable latitude in order that his question might be understood by the hon. member concerned. I would ask him now to be as brief as possible and to state his question of privilege.


Solon Earl Low: The question of privilege is this, that the statement made or reported to have been made by the hon. member for Spadina is absolutely false and I want to make a correction of it. That is all. The bill was passed by the Alberta legislature at the last session.


James Horace King: Order.


Solon Earl Low: It provides for the orderly settlement of Hutterite colonies which consist of upwards of one hundred members, but individual Hutterites can live in Alberta anywhere they wish to buy land, or anywhere they can find a job.


James Horace King: Order.


Solon Earl Low: The bill has nothing whatever to do with individual liberty.


James Horace King: Order. I have given ample time to the hon. member to state his question of privilege.



INQUIRY AS TO SALES OF CLASS II OF 1946 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister tell the house how much class II wheat of the 1946 crop has been sold and what is the average price received?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am grateful to the hon. member for Selkirk for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, which enabled me to get a comprehensive but brief reply.
Sales of class II wheat: August 1 to May 31, amounted to 56-9 million bushels, of which 35-6 million bushels were for export in the form of flour. Average sales price, $2.38 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver.
From August 1, 1946, to January 31, 1947, first half of the crop year, the board's daily class II price ranged from $2.05 to $2.34 a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver. From February 1, 1947, to May 31, 1947, the board's class II price has ranged from $2.34 to $3.10 a bushel.
The sales figures given above will include a small amount of 1945 wheat sold early in the present crop year.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCONTINUANCE OF RATIONING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R.E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont.): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the large increase in the stocks of butter in Canada, will the minister inform the house when rationing of this product will be discontinued?
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: That is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.


Mr. DROPE:: That is the same answer as the one the minister gave me about three weeks ago, and I do not consider it an answer at all.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. When does the govern-
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

ment intend to establish customs facilities in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, so that foreign aircraft can clear from there instead of having to go to Massett on the Queen Charlotte islands, which is causing a great deal of confusion?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Aircraft both foreign and domestic, can be divided into two classes, namely pleasure aircraft and commercial aircraft. On May 26 the department established customs facilities in Prince Rupert so that foreign aircraft of the pleasure type may clear there. The matter of Clearing commercial aircraft is being given consideration.



EXTRADITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he say how far negotiations have proceeded with regard to the extradition treaty between United States and Canada? If he is not in a position to make a full statement today will he make it at some conveniently early date?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I shall have the appropriate files examined so as to be able, at an early day, to give accurate information to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 261, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I desire to offer a few comments on this bill at this stage. It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that there was called in the year 1938 what was known throughout this nation as the Bracken wheat conference in Winnipeg. At that time they recommended an initial price of not less than eighty cents a bushel. In those days market conditions were difficult in the Dominion of Canada. Following that, there was the original plan by the federal government to drop the initial price to sixty cents a bushel and pay an acreage bonus on yields up to fifteen bushels an acre. However, the final policy of the government of the day was to pay seventy cents initial payment and acreage bonus up to

a yield of twelve bushels an acre. The act was brought into being in 1939 on that basis.
The application of the act applied and still applies to all three prairie provinces and the Peace River block in British Columbia. There are three main sections in the act. There was the national emergency section which provided that in any year the price of wheat was less than eighty cents a bushel the minister could declare it an emergency year. Each farmer residing in a township with the following average yields was to receive the following awards: up to four bushels and under, $2 an acre on half the cultivated acreage; from four to eight bushels an acre, $1.50 an acre on half the cultivated acreage; from eight to ten bushels an acre, $1 per acre with a limit of 200 acres on which he could receive an award. This section was later amended so that the minister could declare an emergency year, regardless of the price that was being paid for wheat.
Section 4 dealt with crop failures. Regardless of the price of wheat, a province could be declared a crop failure area under the following conditions: at least ten townships with five bushels per acre or less in Alberta and Manitoba; in Saskatchewan at least 135 townships; awards: up to five bushels, $2.50 an acre on half the cultivated acreage and a maximum of $5.00 and a minimum of $2.00.
Section 6 provided for one per cent levy on all grains marketed in the prairie provinces, and that continues today. All farmers, including tenants actually farming the land, were eligible; ranchers were excluded and businessmen doing part-time farming were also excluded. Farmers who had more than 3,000 bushels and more than eight bushels per acre are ineligible. Otherwise all farmers receive the bonus, regardless of their yield if they are in an eligible township.
A recent amendment excludes from an eligible township any block of nine sections which has an average yield of more than ten bushels per acre, if the block lies next to an ineligible township. The same amendment brings into the eligible class any block of nine sections with an average yield of ten bushels per acre or less in an ineligible township if it lies contiguous to an eligible township, and that has been our difficulty from the point of administration.
With respect to administration, the head office has been located in Regina with branch offices in Edmonton for Alberta and in Winnipeg for Manitoba. The township yields are obtained by inspectors appointed for that purpose who make personal calls and obtain

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
the production and -acreage of each farmer, within these areas, I believe, after application has been made by the municipal officials asking that it be done. The superintendent then presents all the township data to the board of review which passes on the eligibility of the township.
The operation of the act from 1939 to 1946 inclusive has brought in, under this one per cent levy, the following receipts:	from
Alberta, $6,205,000; from Manitoba, $3,619,000, and from Saskatchewan, $12,895,000. The payments made within the provinces are as follows: for Alberta, $15,209,000; for Manitoba, $1,730,000, and for Saskatchewan, $45,558,000. The total levy collected under that scheme has been $22,719,000, while total payments have amounted to $62,497,000. In addition, there have been administration costs, amounting, on the average, to about $300,000 a year.
Several of us have put questions on the order paper and received answers by way of returns, and we find that for seven years in succession eighty-two of these townships have received these P.F.A.A. payments; 396 townships have received these payments for six consecutive years; 849 townships have received them for five years in succession, and 1,383 townships have received the payments in four consecutive years. The act has been in force for eight years, and in only one year, 1942, were no payments made.
On previous occasions I have referred to the fact that at times the operation of this act is somewhat in contradiction to the operation of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. What it means, as I think can be readily proved by the fact that some of these farmers have received payments for seven years hand running, is that many of these people are farming sub-marginal land. Enough money has already been paid out in this way to purchase the land. Approximately 1,160 farmers who received the bonus for seven years were paid a total of $2 million. Based on the 1946 cultivated acreage, after ten years the farmers received $5 per acre for their land, or a total of about $1,760 each. In some townships the average total amount paid would be approximately $7 per acre. I know of land in my own constituency, in the Palliser triangle, owned by one of the municipalities for grazing purposes, which I am sorry to say they are not continuing to hold for that purpose, which now is being sold to operators for $2 an acre. Quite frankly, this is land which I do not believe should be put under the plough. So I think it will be seen that this matter calls for quite a bit of serious consideration.
I have a great deal of detail here. I do not want to discuss the matter at least at this time because, as I said at the resolution stage, we have an undertaking from the minister that the bill is to go to the agriculture committee, where I am sure it will receive close scrutiny.' I do say, however, that this act should have only one clause dealing with eligibility, instead of two; that is, the crop failure and the emergency year. In the second place, it should be on an individual basis, not on a township basis. The part township clause and section 8 have not solved the problem so far. The act should provide that the land of any farmer who becomes eligible for these payments during seven successive years would be purchased by the government for community pastures under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. It is a waste of public money to keep the act functioning as it is at present, and probably have operators living under conditions under which they should not attempt to farm. There is some argument as to whether the territory within those provinces should be zoned and some smaller categories provided. In some cases the payments should be larger. However I seriously urge the government to consider the possibility, after so many successive crop failures, of purchasing that land for community pastures.
As I have said, there are many more things which might be discussed, but since we are going to take up these matters in the committee on agriculture, I think I should reserve much of my comment for that stage.


Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house at great length, because I understand that this bill is going to committee, but since I am not a member of the agriculture committee I believe I should take this opportunity of offering a few remarks, because the provisions of this bill are of vital importance to the con-The second important amendment is that the amount a farmer may thresh is not limited to
3,000	bushels. As I read the act, I commend the government on these changes, which I think will be endorsed by the people concerned, especially by those who expect to benefit under these provisions.
I should like to refer to the interpretation section, which defines "farmer" under the act. It seems to me that the definition now is wider than it was before, and again I think I must commend the minister for having changed it. But we must remember that apparently this definition is still subject to regulation, and of course in that way it could be limited. I hope and trust, however,

3S20
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

that if any new regulations are promulgated under the new definition the minister will see to it that any limitation imposed will be as liberal as possible as far as the beneficiaries under the act are concerned. I should like to commend the minister for including in the definition of "farmer" a member of a cooperative ; and although the act does not so state, I presume this means a member of a cooperative farm. These cooperative farms are becoming quite extensive in the west, especially in Saskatchewan, and I thank the minister for thinking of these people.
Then the new section 3 provides that the benefits may go to a man who has been a farmer between May 1 and November 1. I presume this provision has been put in, following the understanding that a man shall not have two occupations, and so that a man may take some other position between November 1 and May 1, in order to earn some extra money, and still be entitled to the benefits of the act. I approve this; but I suggest- that the minister should not confine himself to definite dates, between May 1 and November 1. If a farmer is going to have a crop failure, in many instances he will know it by the middle of July, and I believe he should then be entitled to go out and earn himself some extra money, which undoubtedly he will need not only for sustenance but to help carry on his farming operations. So I should like the minister and perhaps the committee to consider this feature of the matter. Iif a man knows in the summer that he is going to have a crop failure, he should then be permitted to go out and earn some extra money in order to tide himself over.
Further, in connection with the definition of "farmer", I should like the minister and the committee to consider the case of the farmer who has some little business in addition to his farming occupation. I am thinking particularly of a man in a small village in my constituency-and I dare say there are many men like this throughout the west-who is adept at blacksmithing, -and who keeps a little blacksmith shop in the village, close to his own farm. He does not rent his farm; he farms it himself, and that is his main occupation. Last year his income from blacksmithing, which he does more or less to oblige his neighbours, was about $300. Yet, because he earned that $300 he was found not to be eligible to receive the benefits under the act. I know it is difficult to determine cases like this, but I believe that if the regulations or the law were to limit the amount of money which a farmer
may make outside of his farming operations, it would meet the requirements in a case such as this.
The largest number of complaints which I have received in connection with the working of this act had to do with the question of the township award. As the minister knows, I have written to him on several occasions in connection with complaints which I -have received; and I may say that I have received more complaints than I have referred to him because I did not wish to bother him, inasmuch as they were all on the same basis. In order to explain to the house how this act works, and how unjust it is to some people whom it should but does not benefit, I should like to give the example of one township in my constituency, which is township 37, range. 28, west of the third meridian in Saskatchewan. In this township there are about a dozen sections on the west side and in the middle, which have low-lying, heavy land and where the farmers have experienced good crops. But to the north, on the east and on the south they have had small crops; in fact, practically crop failures. As the law stands, this whole township itself, because of the good crops in the centre of it, was not eligible, but undoubtedly these poor farmers who were living on the north, on the east and on the south were eligible. The law provides that part of a township may be eligible only if it adjoins a township which itself is within the provisions of the act. I know the officials of the board of review did their best in connection with this case and interpreted the act as they should have. I have no complaint to offer on that score. But I think the law is wrong. The result in this case is that the south part of the township, sections 1 to 18 received the bonus, and sections 23 to 26 and sections 31 to 36-in other words, ten sections-received nothing, or the farmers living in those ten sections received nothing. Yet they had a crop which was as poor or poorer than that of some of the farmers in sections 1 to 18, just because in the centre of that township there happened to be low-lying land and the yield of the farming operations in those sections of the township was such as to show an increase. The fault lies, I think, in the fact that a part of the township must be a rectangular block. I plead with the minister to take the word "rectangular" out of the act. In this particular case these ten sections which I mentioned could very well have been included with the other eighteen sections and justice would have been done. Of course the block

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
would not have been a rectangular block. I think the minister should take that into consideration and amend the act accordingly.
Another matter which I wish to refer to the minister and draw to his attention is the fact that, in order for part of a township to be eligible, it must be adjoining another township which is eligible. It may be that under the new provisions this is to be done away with; I do not know as to that. It seems to me also that section 7(b) would need some amendment necessitated by the other amendments. I should like the minister to look into that as well. I think this question of township adjustment, especially the adjustment of parts of the township, has, as I have pointed out, worked an injustice on some of the farmers. For instance, in this particular township which I have described, the farmers in the north end of the constituency have now experienced a practical crop failure for two years without having been able to get the benefit of the act. I suggest that the minister again look into this matter and see what he can do. Perhaps the act can be. amended by inserting a further clause giving the board of review or the minister some powers of discretion in order to rectify such injustices.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Before the bill passes, I should like to say a word or two concerning it. The present Prairie Farm Assistance Act is a definite improvement over the act which it replaces. As I understand it, the payments may be made any year without the necessity of a declaration of an emergency year. That is all to the good. But the payment may now be made only on the basis of nine sections, as I gather it, provided that those nine sections are adjacent to a township which is declared eligible. While that is much better than it was formerly, it is not yet as it should be. We social crediters believe that there should be a crop insurance scheme across Canada, and that losses ought to be paid on an individual basis rather than on the basis of a number of sections or townships.
It may be argued, Mr. Speaker, that constitutionally the federal government could not pass an act for such a scheme of universal insurance for farmers. We do not sympathize with that point of view. We believe that the federal government could take care of crop insurance by passing enabling legislation much as is done in the case of old age pensions, permitting the money to be provided to the provinces, allowing each province to come in with its own legislation providing for crop insurance within the province, and allowing each province also to take over in large measure the administration of the act. In the 83166-244i
days to come this sort of arrangement ought to be made by the dominion government and will be recognized everywhere as being the sound, most effective and economical way of taking care of this important matter.
It will be urged that the dominion government could not possibly supply the funds necessary for a universal crop insurance scheme. On the face of existing realities, such a contention does not quite make sense. Undoubtedly in this country we are able to produce enough goods and services of all kinds to provide all the farmers in Canada with an adequate income in any given year, regardless of whether they are hailed, rained out, frozen out or in any other way deprived of their crops. Approaching the matter from that common sense, realistic point of view, I think every member in the house and everyone throughout the country will grant that it simply is not quite reasonable that we should be without a crop insurance scheme from coast to coast in Canada, covering every kind of agricultural endeavour. If Canada is able to produce sufficient goods and services to provide for the needs of her population, agricultural and non-agricultural, up to a given standard of living, that fact indicates quite clearly that the national credit could be used as a means of providing the money with which to buy crop insurance.
The minister deserves commendation for the steps which he has taken thus far in the development of this Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He has gone a long way since the inception of the scheme. He is making progress surely and probably as rapidly as public opinion will permit him to do at the present time; he is showing unmistakable signs of a progressive attitude in this matter. We social crediters desire to commend him for his past efforts and to congratulate him on the measure which he is now introducing. We shall follow it through with great interest and with complete readiness to support him in all forwardlooking steps.


Mr. R. N. JUTRAS (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal to say on this act but I am not going to do so now. I just want to say two words at this stage. A suggestion has been made in the house during this debate that the bill should be extended to include other parts of Canada. As the minister and the house know, I am one of those who hold the opposite view. I sincerely believe that an opportunity should be given some of the provinces to withdraw from the act. I for one, coming from Manitoba, gave facts and figures last year in the debate, which proved that in that province so far, since the act has been instituted, had it been administered by the
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

province, from its own. revenue of one per cent it could have paid crop failure assistance as well as assistance for hail damage, and still have a reserve in store. However I shall not go into detaiL at the present time.
I regret that the door was not left open in the bill to allow certain of the provinces, such as my own, to depart from the scheme if they wished to. I believe that my own province, for one, would be willing to take over the act, provided that the wheat board, or the agency of the federal government, would levy the one per cent and then turn it over to the province.
However, if the act is to carry on in the present form, and if we must tag along, for a few more years, I commend to the minister that the definition of "township" in the act be cleared up, so far as river lots are concerned1. As hon. members know, a good part of Manitoba is in the Palliser triangle, and most of the wheat growing area of the province is in the Red River valley. The greater part of the Red River valley, or at least a large portion of it, is made up of river lots. According to the act, there is no definition whatsoever to take care of a township in the area of river, lots. In the past I believe there has been only one year when the river lots could have qualified, when there was a complete crop failure. There was one two years ago in my section of the country. When it came to applying the act in the river lots area, there was no definition, and1 this condition led to a great deal of confusion.
The officials of the department played around with various blacks of river lots, but could not come to any definite conclusion. It would be a great help to them, and a great help to the people if it were known what a township is in those areas, and would be most helpful in the event of another crop failure occurring there. I commend that particularly to the. minister. Perhaps this is only a detail, but it is a significant one, and one which should be elucidated and cleared up in the act.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two observations respecting the bill before the house. I have received a number of complaints from farmers in my constituency about one feature of the Prairie- Farm Assistance Act which, even in the present bill, has not been improved. I refer to the township qualification, which still appears in the bill.
Perhaps the wording of a letter forwarded to me expresses more clearly than I could the problem which faces the farmers. This is the letter addressed to one farmer in my constituency who applied on behalf of a group of twenty. The reply he received was as follows:
We have to advise again that the prairie farm assistance payments are made on a township basis. That is, a township -must be declared eligible by the board of review before this department can make payment, and in order for the board -to qualify such township for payment, they must find the average yield of wheat to be less than 8 bushels per acre. There is only one exception to the township being a unit for payment and that is, when an ineligible -township, -and the board find 9 or more sections forming a rectangular block, having an average yield of wheat of 8 or less bushels per acre and the side of this block of sections bordering an eligible township, the board may then qualify such a block of sections for payment under section 7 (b) of the act.
Then, with respect to the claim made the letter states:
In so far as township 51-16 With is concerned, the average yield of wheat for -the township was found to be considerably in excess of 8 bushels per acre. Therefore, the board of review declared this township ineligible. _ Furthermore, as this township is not bordering an eligible township, it is not possible to qualify any portion of same under section 7 (b) of the act.
We regret to advise that no payments will be made under -the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in township 5.1-16-4 for the crop year of 1945.
I shall state my appeal in a few words. Surely we have reached a time, in view of the length of time the act has been in operation, when we should bring in an amendment to the act so that individual farmers would qualify. That is the real problem which faces many farmers in my constituency. , I have no drought areas, but the individual farmers who do suffer receive no compensation whatsoever. When all farmers have one per cent deducted from the grain -threshed, whether the farm is in a rectangle or not, why should they not qualify for payment when the matter comes before the board?
I need not say more on the subject at the present time. I do request, however, that the minister give serious consideration to an amendment which would give an opportunity to farmers to apply on an individual basis.


Mr. C. C. MILLER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say a great deal respecting the amendment at the present time. However there are a few points which perhaps apply to the area from which I come in Manitoba and which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister.
I agree with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) that the definition of "township" should be changed in the act because, as the minister well knows, along the rivers in Mani-

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
toba the divisions of land are not made in townships or in sections. The division is made in river lots; and in some areas it is divided into what are known as wood lqts.
In my view the definition as it appears in the act is definitely restricted to the survey of townships, as set out in the act, and as referred to in this bill. I believe that some definite provision, as suggested by the hon. member for Provencher, should be made so that, if need arose, there would be no question at all that those subdivisions of land known as river lots and wood lots, which are of a substantial nature in acreage, would be eligible under the act.
The amendments now introduced by the bill before us would lead me to conclude that almost any kind of crop failure would make an applicant eligible under the act. If that is not so, then I suggest that the minister should clarify the position. In section 4 of the original act there was provision that relief could be given in respect of crop failures as a result of anything other than hail. But in the act as it now stands there is nothing even to exclude damage from hail, provided that it takes in a sufficiently large area. I am only mentioning this, so that when the minister speaks he may make it clear to the farmers of this country whether or not the scope of the act is being enlarged by the changes provided in the present bill.
I would ask also that he consider adopting individual settlements. I imagine it would be extremely difficult for the department to make settlement on an individual basis, but that is beside the point. Farmers all over this country, particularly those who are in areas like the one from which I come and where there is rarely a crop failure, have been paying substantial sums in the one per cent deductions. If it should happen that one, two or five farmers in the immediate vicinity of the city of Portage la Prairie, where there has not yet been a crop failure which would entitle the farmers to come within the provisions of this act, should have a failure, it seems to me it would be inequitable if they could not be reimbursed for the substantial amounts they have paid over the years. They should be reimbursed even though there was not sufficient acreage to justify making a claim through the municipality.
Unquestionably the minister has given consideration to this point because it is not unique nor does it originate with me.. I know the minister has had this put up to him from all angles and by many hon. members. In spite of that and in spite of the fact that he may have rejected the idea of even further
considering individual settlements, I suggest to him that he and his departmental officials and his colleagues should take this matter under further advisement. Unquestionably it is a moot point, particularly in the good farming areas, and one which is creating a great deal of dissatisfaction.
I should like to refer for a moment to the matter of withdrawals. It is true that there are certain areas which are asking for the right to withdraw^ from this scheme, but if this is to be done I think it can be done only on a province-wide basis. It seems to me that if the farmers who are now advocating the right to withdraw approached this problem from the broad viewpoint they w'ould not desire to have a withdrawal provision inserted in the act. I think those farmers who are in good crop areas can stand the one per cent deduction year after year if they are blessed with good crops year after year. The benefits which come to the whole west from the scheme are such that I do not think the farmers in the good areas, such as the one from which I come, would insist on a withdrawal escape clause being included in the act. I am satisfied that I can speak for those farmers and say that when they have given the matter full consideration they will realize that it would not be fair for them to shirk their duty to the less fortunate parts of the western provinces.
As far as I am concerned I would be prepared to accept the responsibility of standing on any platform or going into any meeting of farmers and asking them to reconsider any desire that they may have had to have a withdrawal escape clause inserted in the act. However, in view of the fact that many of my constituents have urged that there should be a withdrawal escape clause to apply to any province which might desire to withdraw from the scheme, I felt constrained to mention it on the floor of the house today. But I must say that, so far as I am personally concerned, I feel that a withdrawal clause should not be inserted in the act.


Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, since we have the assurance of the minister that the bill is to go before the agriculture committee I shall be brief. However, as I am not a member of that committee I have a few suggestions I should like to offer at this time. First, I should like to commend the minister for the changes provided by the bill, but in my view there are many more changes that should be made if we are to give the farmers the real protection they have been looking for in the past few years.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

The difference in soil and climatic conditions in the various parts of Saskatchewan are manifold. In the south we have drought conditions, but drought in the northern areas is quite uncommon. On the other hand, the northern areas of the province are subject to frost damage and damage from insect infestation. All through the province we have the menace from hail. The losses from drought in the south are much greater than the crop losses in the north caused by frost or other adverse conditions. Both in the northern and southern areas the differences in soil have a considerable bearing upon the losses sustained by individual farmers.
I believe I suggested last year that there should be a system of zoning in the provinces into crop risk areas with lower percentages of deduction in the low risk areas and higher percentages in the heavy risk districts. I believe that would make the burden of crop failure assistance much more equitable. A number of farm organizations have suggested this plan, so I am not the originator of it. At this time I should like to place on record a resolution passed by one of these organizations, the rural municipality of Weyburn, as recently as March 11, and I quote:
Resolved that deductions and payments during short crop years are too small and we recommend that the one per cent deduction for P.F.A.A. be increased in the southern part of the province with corresponding higher payments in crop failure areas.
The resolution goes on to favour zoning of the province to apportion the deductions and benefits. Reference is also made to the high protein wheat produced in the south. This may not be apropos of the question, but, since the minister no doubt has heard of it before, I think it would be wise for me to mention it. The recommendation is made that wheat from the south should be graded on a protein basis to give a premium on wheat grown in the dry area which would more than offset the higher deductions which zoning would require from the southern area.
In my opinion payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act- should be based on the individual farm yield. Several hon. members have expressed the same opinion. The present act provides for assistance to the farmer on the basis of the average yield of the township in which he resides. Even with the present changes allowing for a nine-section block, there is still a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. If it is not feasible to have - benefits on an individual farm basis I would suggest that the proposed rectangular block of nine sections be reduced to a smaller area. The present system seems to me unsatisfactory

because farmers living in the bonus area frequently, not only last year but in previous years, had substantial yields, but because they resided in a government "declared" area they were recipients of benefits under the act, while, on the other hand, farmers living on the fringe of the stricken area who had little or no crop at all received no benefits, since the average yield in the block in which they lived exceeded the maximum set by the act. Very often a farmer who failed to obtain the bonus lived just across the road from a neighbour who had received benefits under the act and had had a crop.
The act now reads that if a township has not the requisite yield to bring it within the act a rectangular block of not more than nine sections may be brought in. That is a good feature of the act. But this block of nine sections must be lying alongside an eligible township. This act should be amended to make it more flexible so that it would not be necessary to have a rectangular block, or to have it contiguous to an eligible township. Despite any changes which might be made in this particular regard, I am of the firm belief that benefits should be paid on an individual farm basis. There seems to be a sufficient number of inspectors now employed by the Department of Agriculture under this act to conduct the field work in this connection, so that no further operating expenses would be entailed. The farms in the stricken area have to be inspected anyway to ascertain the true situation in the stricken districts. I believe that this change in the act would actually save the government money, because many farmers now receive benefits under the act who are not in great need of those benefits. In any event, it seems to me that hail damage is nearly always on an individual farm basis. Certainly the damage runs in strips, so that damage at least from this source should be treated on an individual farm basis.
The act as it stands limits benefits paid to an individual farmer to a maximum of $400 or $500, depending upon whether the year is declared an "emergency year" or a "crop failure year". This is an inadequate provision and does not meet the farmers' needs. I think at this time I should draw the minister's attention to a resolution that was passed in convention last year by the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. The minister is, I believe, quite familiar with the resolution, but I wish to place it on the record because it is well worthy of consideration. The resolution asks:

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
. . . that the crop failure bonus be increased to $5 per acre and that the maximum be $1,000, and the assessment 2 per cent, and that payments be made on an individual plan.
While the two per cent assessment might not be acceptable to areas in the north of the province where crop failure is less common, certainly it would be welcomed in the south if benefits under the act were increased. Zoning as previously suggested, to apportion the deductions and benefits would, I believe, be acceptable to all areas in the province.
Under present conditions where the yield is less than five bushels to the acre, a $1 payment is made per cultivated area, with a maximum of $400 per farmer, regardless of the acreage involved. That, in my opinion, is hardly adequate relief. Costs of farm operation have substantially increased. The purchase of the seed which would be necessary for the next crop year would, at present prices, cost the average farmer of 320 acres more than the benefits paid out now under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The farmer also has food and clothing to purchase for his family and many other expenses as well. The maximum to be paid under the act should, I firmly believe, be increased to $1,000, which, with present high production costs, is certainly little enough.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that farmers in the west on the whole are thankful that there is such a thing as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It gives them a measure of security. It keeps the wolf from the door when crop failure is complete. But the wolf is never far away, because of the meagre benefits provided under the act.
I consider that the recommendations I have made deserve consideration. That is the reason I make them this afternoon, in order that they may be considered by the minister when this bill goes before the committee. I am sure that if they were incorporated in the bill it would make the act more effective and would establish a feeling of security for farmers everywhere in the western provinces. I am satisfied that the farmer is willing to contribute more to the fund if his benefits are to be on a more adequate scale. Finally, I believe that the zoning system is the only way to take care of inequalities, not only in the deductions scheme, but also in the benefits paid out under the act.


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion that has taken place on the second reading of the bill has been not only interesting but quite instructive. I appreciate the remarks which have been made in. favour of the legislation as such, but in the criticisms of the measure
there has been shown some misunderstanding as to the intentions of the government at the time the legislation was first placed on the statute books of the dominion.
It will be recalled that from 1931 to 1937 there was a period of severe drought in western Canada, and during that period we paid out large sums of money from the federal treasury. It is in my memory that $186,000,000 was paid out of the treasury of Canada for the purpose of maintaining persons in what is known as the drought area of western Canada. Having made that enormous expenditure, or at least committed ourselves to credits which resulted in that expenditure finally, the government thought it was necessary for some action to be taken to assure the people of the district that certain assistance would be available under certain circumstances.
It will be recalled that during the period from 1931 to 1937 farmers had to go to councils and plead for relief. The result was that certain amounts were allowed per person in order to maintain the individual in food and clothing. It was thought by the government that if that condition were allowed to continue in an area that was populated by about a million people, in due course it would be depopulated. Any young person who finds himself or herself dressed in other people's clothes when he goes to school or to church will not remain in a district which compels that for a very long period of time; they will get out just as soon as they can. It was decided that an area which had contributed so much wealth to the Dominion of Canada should not be depopulated. The experience of having kept these people there has proven to us that the contention was the correct one. Everything that was done by previous dominion governments and by provincial governments and municipalities has proven to have been useful because, during the last six years, when this country was one of the allied countries at war that particular area produced more tonnage of food than it ever did in any other six years of its existence. In other words, the experience of having kept people on that land to produce has resulted in showing that we could not have contributed as we did during the war period to the feeding of the allied armies and Britain in the manner in which we did had that area not been opened, and it has proven, too, that an area which can produce that much wealth over any five, six or seven-year period should be kept in production during the other five, six or seven year periods during which crops are not sufficiently great to' maintain population there.
3S26

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
That was the idea behind the legislation, but there is a further fact which we should recall at this time. Prior to the enactment of this legislation, the legal and constitutional responsibility for taking care of people in those areas rested on the province and on the municipalities; it rested first on the provinces, and then by provincial law much of it was placed upon the municipalities individually. That is one of the reasons why the blocks are maintained. The federal government considered that in taking the solid blocks they were taking on the responsibility that should be placed on all the people of Canada.
Prior to the introduction of this act, we assumed the responsibility if twenty-five municipalities in a province found themselves unable to maintain their people, and when they got down to having only ten we ceased to assist. Under this act we have said, down to the present time, that if the government declared a year an emergency year, then the federal government assumed responsibility for the solid blocks of people to whom it was found necessary to give some assistance in order that they might be able to remain in that area. We have however, said over and over again from 1939 to the present, every time that we have received a resolution, such as that which was just placed on Hansard, from a municipality in the heart of the drought area, no matter what government was carrying on in the province, that the federal government is not taking the full responsibility; that part of the responsibility must rest on the province, and that if the province so decides, part of it must still rest on the municipality. Therefore we have said what the province ought to do, if they desire us to go farther than we have gone, is to make some contribution into the fund to take care of those corners in certain areas which are not included when the act says it must be a rectangle and when you say it must be contiguous to an area which is already proven to be a drought area. The dominion government believes that the areas which are immediately roundabout the solid block should be taken care of through the province and the municipality contributing something. If it is desired that the administration should be carried on under one set-up we are satisfied to conduct that administration; but if it were thought that it should be conducted under some other set-up, provincial or municipal, I am sure that we would cooperate in every way possible to see that that is carried out.


Mr. BURTON:: Has that offer been extended to any of the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been extended to every province at least once a year during all the time that we have had any government in existence in any province since 1939; therefore' I am not speaking of any particular government. It has been extended to every municipal organization at least once a year, because they pass the same resolution year after year. I personally have replied to them and have pointed out just what I am now pointing out to the house. No later than this month a resolution came to us from the municipal association in Alberta, and I received a reply back from them in which they asked my permission to send the suggestion to every municipality in the provinces. I replied, stating that I expected them to send it to every municipality and I am sure that they would do so. But it has always been the intention- and it has been stated over and over again both in the house and outside-that any time the provinces or the municipal associations desire to make a proposal to us which involves the paying of something into the fund, which.'might be worked out on a basis such as was suggested in connection with zoning, whereby some particular area might wish to pay in more money in order to get something paid out on a different basis in areas where we do not pay money now-to give consideration to the matter. That is the reason why we placed in the act in the first place the provision that it Should be solid blocks and that these blocks should be on a township basis. Later, we took in a greater part of the area by consenting to take in areas of ten townships or more which were contiguous to the larger block, but we still think the others should accept some responsibility once the greater part of the area is dealt with.
There is one other reason why we have maintained the solid block or the township areas, and I may say that when the legislation was amended before it was the intention that [DOT] when a nine section area was added it should be treated under the terms of the different regulations and terms of the act as though it were an entire township.
There is another reason why we have taken the six-mile square block as the unit, and it is largely the reason which was brought out by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). He said that in his opinion people who have had payments time after time-probably he would say townships which have had payments for so many continuous years-should be eliminated. We sought to meet the same contention when the act was first brought in by saying that the blocks had to be six miles square, and that instead of paying on an

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
individual basis we would pay on a township basis. The reason was that it will be found certain areas within those townships should not be farmed at all, and we have made provision under P.F.R.A. to organize those areas into community pastures, as was suggested by the bon. member for Souris. We have made provision also to stand the expense of moving farmers out of those areas into better areas; and, having done that, we think the federal government has done its share in trying to reestablish these people. Then we say to them, "If you insist on remaining in a township where two-thirds of the land is good and produces good crops every year and one-third of the land is poor and produces poor crops every year, it should not be considered the responsibility of the government to take care of you every year." In other words, instead of removing'areas in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Souris, and on such a wide scale, we have tried to provide against people coming under the terms of the act who insist upon remaining on what everyone recognizes to be submarginal land.
In the act we had another protection against the thing that was feared by the hon. member for Souris; and only today, when I read the bill over carefully after coming into the house, I found that the provision in question had been eliminated from the definition in the present legislation. I am not too sure that when we get into committee we should not consider putting back that protection. In the definition of "cultivated land" the last words were, "and which has not reverted to natural prairie." That provision was inserted in 1939 because, as hon. members know, there were at least a million and a half acres of land in western Canada, much of which had been cultivated over a long period of years, which during the seven years of drought had not been cultivated, or had been allowed to go back to prairie. Perhaps it was just blowing around the country, and was not even growing grass. We said, if that land was brought back under cultivation, payments would not be made on it under this act; and the provision under which it was possible for the administration to carry out that idea was contained in those words, "and which has not reverted to natural prairie." I know there have been some hardships in applying that portion of the regulations, but you cannot apply legislation of this kind over a large area without having some hardships.
I want to repeat that the unit of six square miles was inserted in the act in the first place to provide that people who insisted on remaining on submarginal lands within the area were not paid each year, and
also to see to it that those who lived in areas which were subject to drought year after year, but still had good crops, were not denied the privileges of the act.
I should like to deal for just a moment with one other matter bearing upon the same point. Those who discuss the measure without fully understanding it-I am not speaking of members of this house but those outside- usually speak in terms of yield of wheat. One reason we are removing the section which provided that a man with 3,000 bushels of wheat could not collect is because yield of wheat really has nothing at all to do with the payments. A man may draw if he never grows a bushel of wheat. A man may draw if he summer-fallows all his land in a year and does not seed anything. A man may draw if he has all his land in pasture and only runs cattle. The only reason wheat is in there is to provide a barometer; and that barometer simply says that if the yield of wheat over a whole township is eight bushels an acre or less, then it must have been dry. That is all it says, and that is all wheat is in for.	When the inspectors
go out and go over a township it is not even necessary for them to visit every farm to. find out whether it has been dry. They have been compelled to do so, and thus increase the costs of administering the act, by the criticism that has been made. If they do not call on the farmer, there is some criticism; and if they do not examine the crop carefully there is still further criticism.


Joseph William Burton: Was my impression wrong, then, that when this act was first brought in and the limit of 3,000 bushels was imposed, that was done because it was felt that a person who had 3,000 bushels did not require assistance to pull through the year and put in his next crop?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I remember it, the
3.000	bushels provision was not there when the act was first brought in; it was amended later. I believe that was put there at a time when we were doing other things in connection with wheat. At the time I believe we were paying something over and above the market price of wheat; we were paying eighty cents when wheat was worth sixty-two cents. Under those circumstances, the matter was discussed, and the principle I am outlining now was not accepted by those who were considering the matter at that time. I believe I am wrong when I say this was done when wheat was sixty-two cents. That was in 1938, the year before the act came in, so it was later than that; it was when some special provision was being made which left out the 5,000 bushels
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

in connection with deliveries to elevators; I have just forgotten the circumstances in connection with it. It has been agreed that wheat does not govern the decision as to whether payment will be made to an individual. Wheat governs only the decision as to whether or not it was dry in that area. One can understand that one might go to a farm where a man was raising live stock almost entirely, where he had perhaps only fifty acres of summer-fallow in wheat. That would be the best cultivated land on the farm. All of it might have been in summer-fallow the }mar previous, so that he would grow only one crop in two years. He might have twenty bushels to the acre on those fifty acres, and the remainder of a section of land might be devoted to growing feed for live stock, and pasture. Those who argue for the individual basis would say that, because he had twenty bushels to the acre of wheat on fifty acres, he should not be paid. It was never intended that the provision in relation,to wheat should be applied in that way at all. Wheat has nothing to do with it, other than it was felt we could determine whether or not it had been dry over a whole township by determining whether or not the wheat yield was eight bushels to the acre or less. But if it was twenty bushels to the acre over the whole township we are pretty well assured that it was not dry. Once the decision has been reached that it was dry, we go ahead and pay everyone in the municipality, in order to take care of the people who are raising live stock as well as grain.


Joseph William Burton: You mean in the township?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, in the township. We pay everyone; and if all the townships in the municipality are in, we pay everyone in the municipality. We do that whether they are raising wheat, oats or barley; whether their farm is all in pasture, provided that they are not ranchers and have not irrigation; and we also pay when they have very small areas in wheat and the greater part of the farm taken up in the production of live stock. We think that is fair. The only unfair thing about it is this. If a man produces nothing but live stock; if he sells no grain, he does not pay in at all because all that he pays in is one per cent of the grain he sells. If he does not sell any grain at all. but sells all live stock, then he has an advantage over the man who grows nothing but grain. But, as hon. members- know, there are not so many of those men in the area we are talking about. Practically all of them have more acreage in grain than they utilize in producing live stock. 
But the reason for making it a unit is to determine whether it was dry or not, or simply finding out what the average yield over the whole township was. One could not find that out by taking the average yield of any one man's farm, because in some cases the man's yield would be twenty bushels, for the reasons I have spoken of, and in others it would be very low because he is farming land that he should not be farming at all. So we have tried to eliminate those possibilities by this provision. [DOT]
I think that is all I desire to say at the moment. It is my intention, immediately the bill gets second reading, to move that it be sent to the committee on agriculture and colonization. I hope that in that committee we can discuss all the details which have been raised in the discussion here by those who do not belong to the committee, and that when the bill comes back to be considered in committee of the whole we can go farther into any of the details which were raised and which may require to be discussed at greater length. I only wanted to say what I have said in order to recall again to the minds of hon. members the principles underlying the establishment of the legislation in the first place, and the manner in which we have attempted to carry it out.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask the minister one question before second reading is given. The interpretation is not quite clear now to some of us. When the act is amended as is proposed, will it mean that it will include any type of crop failure, through hail and everything else?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has always included any type of crop failure which was within an area where the crop was below eight bushels to the acre. But if the hail is in an area- and criticism on this score was, I think, raised by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay)-where the average crop in the district is twenty bushels to the acre, but the hail runs right through the middle and takes a strip one or two miles wide, such people are not eligible for payment unless they are tributary to an area which is already in. The reason why that provision was made in that way was that two of the provinces have hail insurance legislation; and I am not sure but that there are three. Three did at one time have hail insurance legislation. Is Manitoba still in the hail insurance, or have they dropped it?


James Arthur Ross: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have dropped it.

Visiting Forces


James Garfield Gardiner: I think they have
dropped it. But the other provinces where the greater part of the drought area is have had hail insurance legislation. They can have it because they are provinces. The dominion parliament has not the authority to bring in insurance legislation. That question was determined in the years when we were discussing hail insurance. It was finally determined that the provincial government had the authority to do that, and the provincial government did bring it in. In Saskatchewan today, a farmer has the right over all the area where hail prevails-and he has not the right in the other because he has not desired to come into it-to collect under the hail insurance law which exists in the provinces. If he, of his own volition, decides to come out from under that, which he has the right to do under the legislation, there is no reason why any other piece of legislation should take care of him. He has legislation now which takes care of him. and he must sign himself out or it will take care of him. If he himself does not sign out personally, the whole municipality has to sign in or sign out in order to make the legislation operative or inoperative. When they have that right now I do not think, in this legislation, we should be asked to provide for it a second time. The provision is there now in the provincial law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of Bill No. 253, to make provision with respect to forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada and with respect to the exercise of discipline and to the internal administration of such forces, and of the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Probe.
Harry Grenfell Archibald: When the house
adjourned last night I was pointing out that the United States had its own individual policy in world affairs and that by allying ourselves, as we are, with them so closely, we shall be drawn into their quarrels willy-nilly. It is also pertinent to point out at this time that the United States has a terrific economic stake in this country, and that the bringing in of the military in this way is just adding the final touch. In the final analysis it will at
least solve one question, namely the flag issue. All the Americans will have to do will be to stick nine more stars on their flag and that will finish it. Either that, or we can create one with a bald-headed eagle carrying a wet muskrat in its claws, and that would be our national flag; because we shall then have military as well as economic dictatorship in this country, and the government will be nothing more than trustees for United States capital.
As regards the attitude of United States personnel when they come into this country, granting them their own courts does not instil into them respect for our laws and customs. Many of the people of the United States are of' the highest type, but they also have their trouble in that country. In Prince Rupert, during the war, for instance, two aldermen who were walking down the street minding their own business were slugged down in the dark by United States soldiers. Owing to the persistence of one of the aldermen, the assailants were tracked down and tried by their own military courts. We never did know whether justice was meted out or not. I am afraid that sort of thing would come back once again. Their customs are different from ours. They have not the same respect for law and order. If they are allowed to come in here in a unit, with their own courts, they will certainly look on us as just another one of the conquered countries. I am absolutely opposed to it at the present time, because I believe it will give the yellow press of the United States some more ammunition in its witch-hunt on communism. If you read history you will find that any time any movement is persecuted bitterly, it grows and thrives on persecution. History has always taught us that. The only way in which we can bring in a higher order of society if we wish to do so, is conr sciously to adapt ourselves to changing times and instil in the people faitn in their own democracy. This witch-hunt will certainly create the very opposite to what it is supposed to do. It is a sign of fear on the part of the people who are conducting it. They are afraid. They have no faith in their own institutions or in their own intellect. Let us have people who have faith in their institutions; then that faith will be instilled in the people, and there will be no more of this ranting and raving about some foreign ideology. We talk about the Russians going into such countries as Poland, Roumanda, Hungary, and so on. We are doing it here by act of parliament, giving the works away. Let us turn this down and throw it out of court, because it will only breed fear and suspicion.
Visiting Forces


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on the bill. I had not the good fortune to hear the interesting debate last night; but it seems to me that it made perfectly clear that this bill takes us far afield into matters of tremendous international importance in which we, whether we like it or not, are deeply and inescapably involved.
I should like to say, in passing, that I have no fear whatever of any ulterior motive on the part of the United States being involved in this bill. I am perfectly prepared to accept the statement of military authorities that this bill is, in many ways, a natural process. But it has become clear, I think, during the course of the debate, that certain important questions are involved, which have been adequately discussed and which I do not intend to take the time of the house in discussing at the present time.
What I wish to speak about for a few minutes is that all-important question which lies at the root of this whole matter and which has been referred to more than once in this debate; namely the relations between the United States and the U.S.S.R. I suppose if there is anything upon which we can all agree, it is that we are deeply grieved1 at the tremendous deterioration in international relations in the last eighteen months. For that we blame the Russians, and, for all I can see, we are entitled to blame them.
It does seem to me that there was in San Francisco about two years ago-perhaps a little more than two years ago-a readiness for cooperation which could have brought the results for which we thought we were fighting. It is now made clear that in the weary months which have followed there has been very little cooperation from the U.SB.R. And, such as there has been, looking at it as fairly as we can, seems to have come only under pressure, only when we have been, as it is called, tough.
Therefore we have come to the conclusion- and I do not see how we can come to any other conclusion-that we have to be firm. The premier of Ontario, who has just returned from Europe, tells us that today and I do not see how we can disagree with him. We have to be firm. We say that we must not have appeasement, because that gets us nowhere; and I do not disagree with that.
But I should like to say-and perhaps this is the real comment I wish to make this afternoon-that firmness is not enough. Firmness, in itself, is not a policy. Therefore I wish to suggest that there are one or two other things we should have in our minds beyond firmness.
I want to suggest that, as in nearly all human [Mr. Archibald.)
relations, the fault is not all on one side; and when we are considering a thing like this, which I think in moderate language we can say is in very truth, a matter of life and death to us, and to our children-it seems to me that we should be very honest with ourselves, as well as very honest with those with whom we disagree. I think we should try to believe that in the end good sense will prevail; because, if it does not, then surely we can say again, using what I hope are not exaggerated words, that there is very little reason to believe that our civilization will persist.
We have talked in the past about the tremendous things which would result from the discovery of new weapons. It seems to me that now we have discovered new weapons which seem different, not only in degree but also in kind, from those which we have been used to before. Therefore I should like to remind the house-and I think we should remind ourselves-that, although I do not doubt that the Russian government is very well informed as to the true state of feeling in this country, nevertheless statements are being made from time to time in the United States and no doubt, if they are relayed to the Russian people, they can be used by the Russian government to suggest to the Russian people that there are imperialistic designs on the part of the United States against them.
I do not believe that to be so for a moment. But I do believe that things are said which can readily be made to bear that interpretation. And in that connection I should like to read a brief statement from that moderate and sensible publication, the London Spectator, which says:
The increasingly impatient and unfriendly attitude of -the American majority to the Soviet Union is a real danger.
Personally I do not believe there is an unfriendly attitude on the part of the American majority; and I shall have a word to say about that later. But I have quoted this as the opinion of a responsible journal because it could be used to show that the Russian government, in trying to alarm its people, has some basis of justification.
What is the truth of the situation? Do any of us believe that there is one one-hundredth of one per cent of the 130,000,000 people of the United States who do not abhor the very thought of war. And does not one believe that that is true with regard to an equally vast number in Russia?
I read the other day an interesting report by an American who had just returned from Europe, and who had been travelling widely on that continent. He said that he never found

Visiting Forces
anywhere that people were interested in war or were talking about war. What they were interested in was housing, food, and clothing, the reestablishment of their families and bringing themselves back to some kind of a civilized life again. Then he added that it was not until he got back to the United States and stepped out of his plane that he began to hear people talking about war. I am not suggesting that many people are talking about war, but I am suggesting that there have been careless statements in the United States, some of which have come from high military authorities, which may have been sufficient, as I say, to enable the Russian government to mislead their people, and to make them believe that there are motives of unfriendliness in the United States against them.
I suppose it is true to say that in the past a good many wars have been fought, to some extent at any rate, from economic motives. But can anyone suggest that either of these two great continental powers need to fight a war or go to war for economic motives? I do not think any person would suggest that. If it is done it will be from fear and from ideological motives. So I say that we have a situation which makes the thought of war in one -way absolutely fantastic; yet, on the other hand, I know people will say, "Well, what is the use of talking about it? The Russian people have no say about what happens. They are in a police state and just like a lot of pawns."
I remember a play some years ago which had as its subject a principality in India. The prince was an absolute monarch. He was asked why he did not do such and such a thing. His reply was-and I thought it interesting at the time, because it is profoundly true even in a police state-"Even the most absolute monarch can only act with the consent of the governed." In a way, probably that is a paradox; and yet I wonder after all if it is so paradoxical. We believe that Hitler had convinced his people so that they were ready to go along with him. I suppose, in a way, that the Russian government have convinced their people, too. And, of course, they were attacked.
Now a word or two as to what I think this adds up to. I do not suggest that we should disregard defence. I do not suggest that we should give up the military advantages we have at the present time. I think we are forced to say, and that we may properly say to the Russians: "You are maintaining your huge army, greater than that of any other army in the world. True, we in America have the atomic bomb, but we have to have a counterpoise to your army."
But I do say this, that at the present time we have a situation which reminds me of a condition which we will all remember when we were boys, when two small boys would shoulder up against each other, with the final result that one would haul off and paste the other-and the fight was on. We have something very much like that now. I suggest, first of all, that it is part of the responsibility of people everywhere-of course, what we can say or do here will matter little; one can carry only one's own load and speak one's own view for what it is worth-that we should refuse to tolerate the idea that war is coming and accept it as a kind of inevitability. I sometimes think we have begun to forget what it is like. A great many in this house have been through the war; some of them have been through two wars, and I think we are all apt to feel, "Oh, well, those prophecies were made and they did not come true." They came true enough in Europe; they came true enough if we are to believe what we have heard from those who have been there.
The next thing I would say is that we should have a strong sense of responsibility in what we say. I ran across two things which had been said'by Mr. Walter Lippmann, who, I think, is one of the wise men of today. I should like to quote them because I believe they are true. This is what he said about the Russians and the atom bomb:
They know we shall not use it against them unless they do what they do not intend to do [DOT] precipitate a general war.
Here is a further quotation about Russia:
They are in no danger and they know they are in no danger of being attacked by the United States.
We all believe that is true and, of course, if the Russian people believed it was true I think there would be no danger of war. It may be said that there are no means of getting that through to them, but I think that is only a half truth. We have had a great deal of evidence to show that the Russian soldiers who were in Europe saw even in shattered Europe a way of life far above their own. They compared it with their own way of life, and we have a great deal of evidence to show that they took back the impressions of what they had seen. We can be sure that the Russian government knows the truth.
The last thing I want to say is this: People will say, "Well, there is not much hope in that; what you are suggesting is that we should be moderate, that we should try to see the other side, that we should curb ourselves from saying things which can be used by this
Visiting Forces

unscrupulous Russian government to poison the minds of their people." I do not know whether there is much hope in that, but all I want to say is that if there is not much hope in that, if it is not worth our while to work to that end, hoping that in the end, in some way which perhaps we cannot now see, better counsels will prevail, then I say there is not much hope in anything.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say in support of the bill now under discussion. I am in agreement with those who advocate that we should not give up part of our sovereignty; but in view of the fact that certain circumstances now exist in the world, in view of the fact that we have practically the same economic interests as the United States, our friendly neighbour, I do not see why we should make so much fuss over this bill and be so afraid of giving up too much of our sovereignty to the United States. I heard the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) say last night that we should not play Russia's game. I agree absolutely with him. Then I heard other hon. members say that the same privileges should be extended to every nation of the world. Perhaps 1 should be excused, but I really cannot make any sense out of such a proposition.
The hon. member for Vancouver North stated that it would be foolish to ask this government and this parliament to extend to the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia and Hungary the same privileges being extended to the United States, a great, powerful and friendly nation. We cannot compare the friendship of Russia toward Canada with the friendship of the United States toward our country. It is impossible; we cannot do it. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), "'ho has just taken his seat, said that we must look at both sides. It is easy now to look at both sides.
If you read the article in Newsweek of last week you must realize that you cannot overlook the dangerous infiltration of communism into the United States and Canada, an infiltration which is spreading its tentacles even into churches. We are not ready to extend these special privileges to the armi of the U.S.S.R. when tomorrow we might be faced with an economic revolution w'hich was developed and encouraged by this infiltration of what my hon. friend has just called the witch of communism. I am afraid of that kind of witch and I am ready to fight it anywhere and everywhere.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is fighting too.


Pierre Gauthier: He does not look like it. If we wake up tomorrow and are faced with that kind of revolution it will be too bad for those who have been so short-sighted. My last reason for being in favour of the bill is that the Russians are against it. I have before me the Montreal Gazette of June 2. Once in a while we find something interesting in the Montreal Gazette. This article reads:
London, June 2-(Reuters)-Moscow radio said in a news broadcast today that Canadians were getting "more and more uneasy" about impending "infiltration" of L'nited States troops, consequent upon plans for United States-Cana-dian defence cooperation.
A nd again:
"In this draft," the broadcast said, "United States troops are given such privileges that have never before been given to foreign troops on territories of other countries in peace time."
Indirectly Russia is asking for the same privileges, and that idea is echoed in this house. The article continues:
"Several articles of the Canadian criminal code will not be applied to the U.S. troops. Military and other U.S. authorities are granted full rights on the Canadian territory, providing only that they do not interfere with the local Canadian ones."
"Several observers consider that the final approval of this draft will be only a further step toward Canada's final subservience to the U.S.A."
I am not afraid of any subservience we may show to the United States. If the United States had wanted to get Canada before, they had many opportunities to do so, and everyone knows it. I think we should rather cultivate the friendship of the United States than try to keep what is left of the friendship of Generalissimo Stalin, who has just called us a weak nation. Maybe my hon. friends who propose to give the same privileges to Russian troops as it is proposed to extend to United States troops will bow down before Mr. Stalin, calling us a weak nation. But in mjr opinion, Canada, with its great natural resources and its strong and virile population, must show Mr. Stalin that we are strong and clear-sighted enough to see what might come upon us through the infiltration of his spies even in this very country. We must not be content with a false sense of security. In view of what has happened lately in this country, we must be more far-sighted and not wait until the revolution comes upon us to give the United States the largest measure of friendship that we can give them. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, for the close friendship that we must extend to the United States and for the safety of my country, I gladly support this bill.

Visiting Forces


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre.):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) last evening constituted a strong argument for the terms of the amendment now before the house to the effect that Bill No. 253 should not now be read a second time but rather that its subject matter be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
The Minister of National Defence gave us certain information regarding what he referred to as a similar act in the United States, and in giving us details of that act he pointed out that it is quite different from the measure now before the house. The act in the United States referred to is the Friendly Foreign Forces Act, andl so far as the act itself is concerned it is general in its application rather than having specific reference to one country as does the bill now before this house. The minister went on to point out that only such countries came under the provisions of the United States Act as are covered by a presidential proclamation, and he gave the terms of one such presidential proclamation which brought the United Kingdom and Canada within the provisions of that act. I noticed, however, that the reference to the United Kingdom and Canada in that presidential proclamation was to these two countries as co-belligerents with the United States. I am not going to go into any further details with regard to the Friendly Foreign Forces Act, but it does seem to me that the information which the, minister has given to the house is sufficient to indicate that we should examine carefully whether the bill before us is the kind of bill that we should be passing at all. I, for one, think that if we are to have a bill of this nature it should be similar to the United States act in that it should be general in its application. But even with regard to the United States act I should like to be able to ask questions as to the significance of that word "co-belligerents". Surely we are not at war at the present time, and therefore I am opposed' to this kind of legislation. In these circumstances it is not good enough to ask the house to give second reading to this bill on the usual understanding that we can make amendments when we are in committee of the whole, because we know we do not get very far along that track. It seems to me desirable that the whole subject before us be referred to the committee on external, affairs where members can discuss the issues involved with the minister, and I am sure that the minister, from the experience we have already had on that committee, will be only too glad1 to accept
the advice and considered opinion of the committee. I hope, therefore, that it will not be necessary for us to vote on this amendment, but that, the government will realize that, it is a good suggestion and will agree to permit the subject matter of this bill to go to that committee.


Pierre Gauthier: Why delay the adoption of this bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The answer to that is quite definite: because I do not like it.


Pierre Gauthier: That is what I wanted tO' know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have all the objections to it that have been stated1 by other hon. members, including in particular the, remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) last evening, and the pointed remarks just now made by the hon member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell).
The main fact of the present world situation, on which this bill has a bearing, is, as was stated last night by the hon. member for Vancouver South, the tragic way in which the world is tending to divide itself into two camps. I can appreciate the sentiments of the hon. member (Mr. Gauthier) who has just taken bis seat when he'referred to the desirability of building up a strong friendly relationship with our great neighbour, the United States of America.


Pierre Gauthier: And of
maintaining it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And of maintaining that relationship for all time. But I wish to point out to the hon. member and to this house that the possibility, not merely of maintaining that friendship, but of actually keeping in existence two countries like the United States and Canada depends upon our world being kept going at all. In other words, our destiny as a nation and the destiny of North America depends upon the maintenance of the peace of the world. We can no longer think in terms of adequate defence for a nation or a continent or a hemisphere. We have to see to it that war itself does not break out again.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario was very much to the point when he talked of how people generally are saying that the dire prophecies about the last war did not come true and maybe we can survive another world war. He was quite right when he said that for great sections of the world the dire prophecies had come true in the tragic destruction visited on large sections of the earth, and furthermore, in the terrific economic and social mal-
Visiting Forces

adjustments we are facing the world over today. I maintain that if we are sensible human beings we simply cannot think at all of pursuing any course that would lead to another war. If you accept the possibility of there being another war and the possibility of civilization surviving another war, why, then, there is logic to this discussion of ways arid means of defending ourselves on a national, continental, or hemisphere basis. But if you face the fact that we simply cannot have another war, that it means the end of everything, then we have to find new ways and means of avoiding it. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that dividing the world into two camps, dividing the world into power blocs, has been tried often enough and it has failed in the past and will fail again.


Pierre Gauthier: It is easy enough to say that on your side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend has made the statement that it is easy to make the statement that our side is in the right.


Pierre Gauthier: It is, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We always do that even in arguments which take place in the house; as for example, the exchanges between the Minister of Veterans Affairs and me. We have them often. I always think he is wrong; he always thinks I am wrong.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: But I am right.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Many more think so than otherwise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to assure the house that that little dialogue was unrehearsed; but it does drive home my point. It reminds me of an experience I had a little over a year ago, in the month of February, 1946. It was then two or three days after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had announced the investigation that was to take place into the espionage situation. By the strangest of coincidents I had the privilege at the time of being in Moscow, and on this occasion-it is particularly in my mind because of the little interchange that my right hon. friend and I have just had-there was a reception held at the Canadian embassy in Moscow. There were three Russian visitors; they were on a semiofficial level. One of them was a lady who was the head of the society for cultural relations with foreigners; the second was an army officer who maintained liaison relationships with military attaches of other embassies in Moscow, and the third person was an official from the protocol division of the Russian foreign office. As was natural,

because of the situation which had developed owing to the announcement about the espionage matter, we had quite a lengthy conversation. I will not go into all the details of that conversation, but it reached a point something like this. These people said to me: "What worries us is that the news which has come out"-they were not discussing the merits or demerits of the case at the moment -"has released such a flood of anti-soviet feeling and anti-soviet propaganda in the Canadian newspapers." That was the principal feature which was being reported in the Moscow newspapers at the time. I tried to explain the freedom of the press as we have it in this country, but we got along to the point where I tried to show to my three Russian friends to whom I was talking the real basic difficulty; I said, "I must admit that our western people are afraid of you, afraid there is going to be another war." With a response that was so ready that I could not avoid feeling it was genuine, they said to me: "Why are you afraid of us? We are the ones who are afraid of you." I was equally taken aback at the thought that they were afraid of us as being the people who might bring on another war. Our conversation carried on. There were five or six of us at this time because one or two of the Canadians had joined us, and we agreed that we had there the epitome of the world situation, a camp on one side afraid of the other, but not for one moment thinking that the reverse is the feeling over in the other camp.
Somehow or another we have to try to break that down. In my view we shall not break it down by adopting the attitude which my hon. friend suggests, always assuming that the other side is wrong. I do not mean to suggest that we go to the other extreme and always assume that we are wrong. What we have to do is to face the thing objectively and set as our aim the breaking down of this division into two camps and get the world together in some sort of international organization which, as the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario has just said, if there is not some hope in it, then there is no hope in anything.
During the course of this debate it has been said that we must be practical. I agree. The suggestion was made last night by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker) that those who talked in any other terms than regional defence arrangements such as this envisages are being unrealistic and that he was tired of that kind of thing. All of us, of course, can use that language. Wre all like to think that we

Visiting Forces
are the ones who are realistic and that it is the other fellow who is being impractical. I want to suggest that the most unrealistic approach in the world today is the approach that thinks we can defend ourselves by some sort of regional defence; that we can defend ourselves by tying up no longer with the British navy but by tying up to the might and power of the friendly nation to the south of us. That, Mr. Speaker, is completely unrealistic. The practical position today is to realize that there is no defence except to end war itself; that the destiny of this country, the destiny of Britain, the destiny of the United States, the destiny of all countries of the world is wrapped up in the maintenance of world peace for all time. It is that or nothing. We must make as our main aim, our main course, the following of ways and means that will somehow reverse the tragic trend which things have taken in the past few months.
I felt that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario was describing the situation correctly when he referred to the deterioration that has taken place in relations between the western camp and the soviet camp in the last number of months. We must remember -and I hope that some day we can recapture it-the high idealism and the high hopes that were raised at the time of the San Francisco conference two years ago. At that time, although the war in Europe was over, V-J day had not yet come; and it was a mark of deep significance that here was a world which was not yet over a terrible war but which was already making plans to build an international organization that would keep the peace which was yet to be won.


Mr. BAKER:: May I ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Loran Ellis Baker: Does the hon. member think we shall establish world peace by disarming and by not taking all the advantage we can of our allies, while Russia arms and is going through a systematic process of building up her armies? Does the hon. member think we can maintain peace by disarmament and breaking away from our allies; or by arming and showing that we can defend ourselves? I should like him to answer that. I am being practical now, but the hon. member has attacked me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not attack my hon. friend; I took his words and used them. The question that the hon. member has asked points up the very, thing that T am trying to say, namely, that in my view the
building of defences is based upon the premise that we are to have another war and that it is perfectly proper for the other fellow to build his defences too. That means that in due course we have a conflict and our defences on both sides are of no use whatsoever.
I believe the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario was not talking in paradoxical terms but was being pretty practical when he said we have to show firmness, we have to make it clear that we are not weak; yet at the same time, or, as he put it, we have to go farther and find ways and means of bridging the gap between these two camps and bringing them closer together.
Now I want now to come a little more closely to grips, if I can, with the point raised by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, who referred to the way in which the Soviet Union is enlarging the number of states coming under its control. It is interesting to note the way in which we refer to the nations that come under the control of the Soviet Union as satellites of that power, and the way in which we refer to the troops of the Soviet Union in those other countries as being an outrage. And I quite agree; I do not deny it for a moment. But it is strange that when we have foreign troops on our own soil we call it a natural process, or working along with people of like-minded notions, or friendly relations with a friendly power. We are honest when we say these things; when hon. members use these phrases in this house during this debate that is what they mean, but it does not look that way to the people in the other camp, just as the things they are doing over on the other side of the world do not look like a natural process, or the soviets working along with people of like-minded notions, or friendly relations between friendly powers.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Who started it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend means, who started this deterioration of relations between the Soviet Lbtion and the United States?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No; who started moving their troops into other countries?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As far as the future is concerned, as far as maintaining world peace is concerned, it does not matter. When we have had an atomic war and we are all dead, it will not make much difference who started . the thing. What matters is that we put some thought and effort now into trying to prevent it.
I should like to get along now to what I consider a practical suggestion to try to put a stop to this policy which the United States,
Visiting Forces

on the one hand, and the Soviet Union, on the other, are pursuing. I think they are both wrong; and hon. members may take their choice as to who started it or who is the worst protagonist of the policy. I believe they are both wrong. I believe the Soviet Union should be condemned in strong language for what it has been doing by way of gathering in a larger number of satellites and trying to push out its frontiers, giving the western camp the feeling that war is coming. I think it is equally wrong for the United States to have gone beyond the famous Monroe doctrine to a Truman doctrine that extends the military and political barriers of the United States half way around the world. We are now being drawn into this United States policy; we are capitulating to it, and I think this country at this moment has a supreme opportunity. We can turn down this idea. We can say we are not going to have United States troops in Canada in peace time. That would be the first move by any small country against the Truman policy or the Stalin policy, and it would put us in the position of being able properly to criticize the Soviet Union for what they are doing as well as the United States. It would also strengthen our position in the councils of the united nations.


An hon. MEMBER:: It would make us absolutely helpless.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not a bit of it. It would restore us to a moral position we are fast losing in the councils of the united nations. It took a long time for this country to convince the other nations of the world1 that we had an independent voice. We took a long step in that direction after the last war, when Canada was accepted as a signatory to the treaty of Versailles and as a member of the league of nations. It has taken a long while to convince the rest of the world that we are not just a daughter of the mother country, and that we speak for ourselves as an independent nation. Now, barely out of that era, we find ourselves being thought of by other nations of the world as a tool in United States foreign, economic and military policy.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not nonsense at all. I had the privilege of attending one session of the united nations; and, while there, it was my experience that we were losing ground, not because of our close connection with the United Kingdom, but because of our close connection with the United States. I suggest and I insist that at future meetings of the united nations any attempt by Canada to express

views on this division of the world into two camps will simply not carry any weight at all, because we are part of the United States scheme; any more than to us the voice of Poland, or Yugoslavia carries any weight, because we say they are just expressing what is in the interests of the Soviet Union.


Mr. MARTIN:: Will my hon. friend permit a question? He mentioned that he attended one meeting, the first part of the first assembly of the united nations, and he spoke of the reputation Canada had at that meeting. To confine my question to that meeting, does the hon. gentleman know of any country whose reputation was any higher in its desire to collaborate in important matters affecting the peace of the world than Canada?


Mr. POULIOT:: If he remained awake during the sitting he deserves a lot of credit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course the question
is worded in such a way that you just cannot answer it; that is why the minister worded it as he did; but I will say to him that he knows we stood high on the first ballot for election to the security council. We did not get elected to that council, however, and it is my view that was largely because we were favoured by the United States, and-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely that was not it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I got around and talked to a good many people, too. I did not waste any time while I was there.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Perhaps
they looked at some of our representatives.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I beg your pardon?
These interruptions mean just one thing. They mean something is being said that is hitting home. I know just as surely as that I am standing here that at the next meeting of the united nations, with United States troops on Canadian soil and the whole infiltration that is going on into our national life, our voice on these matters, as I have said already, will not carry any more weight with those on the other side than does the voice of Yugoslavia or Poland with us when they speak on these same matters.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Your voice won't be
there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The voice of Canada will be there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then how do you explain that Canada was elected for the longest term possible to the economic and social council, at the same time as it was up for election to the security council?

Visiting Forces


Jean-François Pouliot: It is because that council
is not of any importance at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. I may argue
with my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare. (Mr. Martin), but I cannot agree with the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) on that. To me the most hopeful feature of the united nations is the economic and social council; and one of the things I am really proud of is that Canada played such an important part at San Francisco in helping to get the provision for the economic and social council written into the charter. I think that was one of the reasons Canada was accorded such a high position on that council at London.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I want to put before the house and before the government as a serious suggestion the thought that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has posed the problem very well, and that we must try to find some way to reverse the deterioration which is now taking place in relations between the western camp and the soviet camp. We will not reverse the trend by allowing ourselves to be pulled into the western camp. WTe might have a chance to reverse it if we stopped this trend and, by prohibiting United States troops coming onto our soil, put ourselves in the strong moral position of being able to speak with an independent voice and to play, not a lesser but' a greater part than we have played in the past in the councils of the united nations, which, despite what has been said by the hon. member for Temiscouata, to me holds out the only hope for peace in the future. Let us not, on the one hand, boast of our membership in the united nations and talk of the great principles of collective security, and, on the other, follow the old methods of regional defence, the old ideas which led to war; for in our day war is no longer something which we can have and survive. War is something that means the end of everything. In the name of the people of this country whom we represent, in the name of humanity-the welfare of which is the purpose of the united nations-let us use some real sense and try to grapple with this problem in an effective and practical way.
I close with this final plea to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), that he see the meaning and the value in the suggestion which we have made that this whole matter go to the external affairs committee before second reading, and that he therefore accept the amendment made by my colleague the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe).


Thomas Langton Church: I am very much interested in what the previous speakers have said, and in the changes in the policies of hon. gentlemen to my left. I remember the position which those hon. gentlemen took in this house during the dark days six months before the war broke out in 1939. They said, "Let us depend on Washington for peace. What have we to do with Britain's wars?" One of them wanted to reduce the defence estimates of my hon. friend the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), who was then Minister of National Defence. I called the attention of the house to the six hundred miles of unprotected coastline in British Columbia, from Puget sound to the southern Queen Charlotte islands, which had no defence at all if the British fleet were withdrawn from the Pacific in the event of war which I saw coming. After the war started, I said to these gentlemen, "Where are now you prophets who prophesied?"-as the hon. gentleman and the minister are prophesying tonight. I quoted Jeremiah, chapter 37, verse 19, to those gentlemen:
Where are now your prophets which prophesied unto you, saying, The King of Babylon shall not come against you, nor against this land?
These hon. gentlemen, six months before the war broke out, believed in the policy that our defencelessness was our greatest asset. In March, 1939, I moved the adjournment of the house to discuss the matter and told them that war was just about on us, and all that kind of thing. Now what do they say? What does the leader of the party say? Miss Agnes MacPhail, who is not now a member of the house but who at that time represented the constituency of Grey-Bruce, said, "Why do we need to go looking for defence across the water to Glasgow and to London", that we could get all the defence we wanted at Washington and to remember we were on the North American continent. That was the policy of the pacifists. They believed in peace pacts, peace notes, the league of nations, agreements and all that kind of thing-something which caused this second war as well as the first one. I would go as far as anybody in this house in paying respect and showing admiration for the cooperation of the people of the United States. But do not forget this. Had we depended on hon. gentlemen to my left and on Washington for defence, and not on the British fleet, what would have happened? That fleet gave us and all America protection for 200 years. It was the British fleet that saved American shores before the war started. That fleet was the real Monroe doctrine.
Visiting Forces

Where would we have been if we had adopted the policy of hon. gentlemen in the C.C.F.? We would have been invaded, and we were very close to being in that position. The hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) made a fine speech last night. In some respects I agree with what he said. The axis fleet was right up along the coast of Newfoundland, in the St. Lawrence and other places like that. We were very close to being invaded.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me did not refer to the bill at all, or its object or principles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I dealt with the amendment, and that is what is before the house.


Thomas Langton Church: He was one of those to whom I referred when I quoted Jeremiah, who put his dependence in peace pacts, our defencelessness and all the rest of it. But Winnipeg, in which his constituency is situated, raised a large force of magnificent troops when Canada was at war.
I wish now to come to Bill No. 253 and bring the house back to what we are discussing. The bill is based on the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on February 12 last, which deals with seven clauses and different aspects of defence and collaboration with the great nation to the south of us to whom we owe so much.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, just before the recess at six o'clock I had been referring to our hon. friends to my left, and had stated that they were not the only pacifists in 1939 in the country. The debate then on the reduction in the estimates speaks for itself.
I wish to deal with the principle of the bill, because that is what is before us on second reading. True it is that the speeches come within the wide latitude given by the Prime Minister when he addressed the house on February 12 of this year, upon which occasion he outlined six or seven means of collaboration with the United States in respect of defence. No doubt what the Prime Minister said on that occasion has influenced some members who have spoken in this debate.
What is this bill? It is to make provision for the discipline and internal administration of visiting forces of the United States of America, when present in Canada with the consent of the government of Canada. The

provisions of the criminal code, which are declared inapplicable to members of the United States forces, are applicable to the other dominions. They apply to Australia, New Zealand and to the other dominions within the empire, but not to the United States.
The sections in the criminal code I refer to have reference to unlawful drilling, the use of offensive weapons and many other matters. I would call the attention of the house to the principle of the bill, because as we look at the world today we look at a very dark picture indeed. Two years ago, at the close of the war, Great Britain and her dominions stood at the pinnacle of their strength, and stood as a bulwark for the protection of civilization, liberty, and all that kind of thing. During four centuries Britain has saved the world and the empire from a slavery worse than death. I refer to the days of Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and even twice in our own generation against the axis powers.
The New York Times, in a recent article dealing with this matter said:
From the day_ it broke away from the British empire -the United States has been living in large measure under the protection of that empire and in particular, of the British fleet.
This was not necessarily an altruistic action on the -part of Britain, but in days when Europe was the world's powerhouse and when Britain held the predatory European empires, it was to her own best interests to keep other European powers out of the western hemisphere. It was this interest which inspired the Monroe doctrine which was proclaimed by the United States.as its own, and was really made effective by the British fleet.
It was the same interest which in the final analysis safeguarded the freedom of all the Americas.
That is absolutely correct; it is the verdict of history. When I speak with respect to the principle of the bill, I would also, as have other members, speak about the duty this country owes to the people of the United States. In that connection I would point out that in my view the bill before the house violates the principles of the Rush-Bagot treaty. It is an absolute violation of that treat}'. There is no doubt that we owe a great deal to the United States, and it is possible that our collaboration with them and Britain may save us from a third war, or, as F. D. Roosevelt called it, a war of survival. There can be no doubt about that. If we are to save the world, then the western democracies, Great Britain and the United States, must have absolute cooperation and collaboration in all important matters, and protest now against Russian plans to dominate the world.

Visiting Forces
I believe that throughout the war we surrendered too much initiative to Washington in our military, political, economic, social and financial spheres. I am one who believes we have gone too far in that direction, and the United States would have more respect for us if we told them that. I still maintain that patriotism is the cement which binds nations together.
In the Lay of the Last Minstrel, Sir Walter Scott said:
Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
And, doubly dying shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unlionour'd, and unsung.
I believe there are some people in this country who do not appreciate those lines. In the first and second great wars we were saved from war on our own soil by Britain's magnificent fleet, when the enemy came right to our gates. Portions of the axis fleet were right in the gulf of the St. Lawrence, around Newfoundland, and we were saved by the British fleet from the awful results of invasion of our own soil.
Let me repeat that in my view this bill is in violation of the principles of the Rush-Bagot- treaty. I do not know who has asked for the measure. I am wondering what the effect will be when it is read alongside the statement made by that great President Truman who will visit this country within a few days. I know he will be received with open arms, as a tribute to a great nation of which it is his honour to be the President. But it was only on Monday last he issued a statement in which he advised the United States to arm, or to invite extermination. A commission to look into military training has been operating in the United States, and its statement speaks for itself. The President asks for $1,750 million each year for universal training of those from eighteen years of age up.
In view of the statement made last Monday by the President, I believe we must read what he said into this bill. Mind you, I am not objecting to a reasonable amount of cooperation; but we must still remember that we are part of the British empire. While I am opposed to a complete programme of internationalism, I still favour it to a degree. In my view, internationalism should stay where it has always been, namely with Great Britain and her dominions, because that has been the only league of nations which has ever been successful in the history of the world. And why we should go outside it today, I do not know.
It was pointed out by my former leader only a few days ago that we have had no imperial conference. At that time he was referring to defence matters within the empire. When here in Ottawa, Mr. Curtin and Mr. Fraser, the prime ministers of two of our sister dominions which are now being seriously threatened so far as their security within the British empire and the world is concerned, are showing considerable interest in this matter.
I urge that this should have first been considered in an empire conference. The other prime ministers I named would have liked a conference in which Canada would join, but Canada rejected it. We now see the result of it in the statement made to the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) on Monday last. The question was raised by me of the announcement by Mr. Bevin on May 16 in London as to giving up our British bases in the Mediterranean, Suez and the middle east, abandoning that whole area, to retire to East Africa, unwept, unhonoured and unsung and the empire scuttled in this way, and Canada never heard of it. Where would we have been in the last war if we had given up all our bases?
Away back in 1939 some people right here in this house seemed to believe that we could depend upon Washington for all the defence we needed. It was said: Why do we want to go to London or to Glasgow for defence when we can get all the defence we want in Washington? If we had given up those bases; if we had not kept Hong Kong, Malta and the other great bases; if they had been given over to an international body, where would we have been during the last war? We would have had to be neutral, too. They said that we should go to Washington. The United States came into the war after it had been on for nearly two and a half years because they were invaded; Russia came into the war because she was invaded, but Great Britain went to war in the defence of Poland to which she had given a verbal agreement, afterwards a written agreement. Lord Bennett said:
We have not had an imperial conference for some time at which all of the commonwealth was represented and we have no parliament which speaks for all. We, therefore, are developing separate policies in the various nations of the commonwealth and you cannot have a commonwealth last long if all the nations that comprise it are developing separate policies.
What we are facing is the greatest crisis this country has ever faced-and the epitaph has been written in cold-blooded terms just as accurately as far as guessing can be accurate. Many countries believe we are through.
Visiting Forces

In my opinion we should have called a dominion conference on the principles of this bill.
I do not believe in Bill No. 253. I do not believe in the present methods adopted by the united nations. They have given us very little satisfaction. Even Mr. Attlee said he was disappointed in their first year. I believe that what is going on in New York now will lead to untold disaster for the people of this country if we depend upon that agency alone as we did upon the old league of nations before. I further believe, as to this bill, in the words of Mr. Churchill, who said:
I have never conceived that a fraternal association with the United States would militate in any way against the unity of the British commonwealth and empire, or breed ill-feeling with our great Russian ally, to whom we are bound by the twenty years treaty. I do not think we need choose this or that. With wisdom, and patience, and vigour, and courage, we may get the best of both. We have often said of our own British empire: "In my father's house there are many mansions."
That is correct. This bill and the provisions contained in it should first have been considered by the dominions at a meeting, like they used to have every few years to solve these dominion questions of trade, defence and migration.
Russia was referred to today by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdon-nell). I believe that the western democracies should speak out plainly as to what they believe. Unless there is a united effort by Russia and the senior members of the democracies, the United States and Britain, to come to an agreement, there will be, as that great president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said, a war of survival. If another war comes, it will be a war of survival. It certainly will be a war of survival for the western democracies. The only way in which it can be stopped is to make it plain to the other great nations that we want their help in order that there may be peace on earth and good will toward men for all time, and the time is now to oppose the aims of Russia for world supremacy.
Under this bill it is proposed to have the armed forces of another country here in Canada. In view of what has been said, I think we should have the advice of our military advisers. What is the necessity of having those armed forces here at the present time? They can do no good. They are proposing to send a large Canadian army to the United States to train. It is true that in the last war the Royal Air Force had bases down south, in Mexico, but that is another matter.
Bill No. 253 must be considered along with another matter, the giving up of bases along the Atlantic from Newfoundland to British

Guiana. These have been given to the United States under a 99-year lease, which is practically a freehold, as any lawyer will tell you. That lease should be cancelled, and its cost charged to lease-lend by the United States. Now they are coming on to the land. Are we to have these forces come here? I wonder if the matter was taken up at Washington. I referred to this matter in another debate on civil aviation in 1944 when it was proposed to give up certain bases to an international body. After all is said and done, our history books will have to be rewritten if what is going on now is correct. It is said now that we owe nothing to history; that everything is internationalism; that we owe nothing to patriotism and all that kind of thing, and that Britain and the dominions come second to internationalism. If this goes on we shall have to revise our. history books. The same complaint has been made about the histories in the United States and in Canada. We are being asked to give up some of our sovereign rights and to change our status. We are being asked to give away these rights, and I am not referring only to the United States now.
I say: Let them use the bases and give them the raw materials up to our capacity to give, but give them bases by sovereignty-no. If we had given them away before we would have lost the last war. We would never have been in the last war. If we had an international policy in connection with the giving up of parts of the empire-bases-if we had given them up, where would we be today? As the Prime Minister said:
The Canadian government strongly favours a policy of international collaboration and cooperation in air transport and is prepared to support in international negotiations whatever international air transport policy can be demonstrated as being best calculated to serve not only the immediate national interests of Canada but also our overriding interest in the establishment of an international order which will prevent the outbreak of another world war.
I then went on to say what would apply also to Bill No. 253, that we should be ready to cooperate with our allies. I said we should allow them to use our air bases, but we should not give away sovereignty over them. The empire has thrown back its enemies from without and in my opinion she will go on to destroy them. Now is the time that we should try to recapture the spirit of empire and our faith and pride in our dominions and in our trade and commerce. The empire is a living thing and should not be allowed to go by default or into liquidation. The mother country and the dominions fought this battle alone for two years. Our soldiers carried on with those from India, New Zealand. South Africa, Australia and the

Visiting Forces
empire training plan. We stood shoulder to shoulder in the snows of Labrador and Newfoundland and in the heat of India and the far east.
In the days before the war you could go into any large port and find fifteen or sixteen ships from different parts of the empire carrying on their trade. I believe that this same spirit of empire cooperation will continue in the years that are to come. Canada should be ready to go along with the dominions and the empire. The time has come when the government should tell this house and the country what our relations are with the other sister dominions who fought alon-g with us for two years to save civilization. One of our great allies stood aside for over two years with Germany, but Russia has since made a glorious record in the last two years of the w'ar with Germany.
That is the speech I made in 1944, before the war was concluded. I was referring to the policy which should be adopted then'- this would apply also to this bill-in connection with the use of bases and having forces in the countrj'. In view of the Prime Minister's statement on February 12 last, I have yet to hear any real reason given for permitting troops of another country to be in Canada two years after the war.
One million men from the dominions went to the help of the mother country in the first world war and 130,000 of these men fell on the field of battle. These men went under their own status, autonomy and sovereignty, and what they did voluntarily changed the whole history of the world.
So far as this bill goes, I have my own views in connection with it. It simply comes down to this: Are we or are we not to continue to be a partner with the mother country in the defence of the empire and the world? We were her partner in two great wars, and the result was that the axis parties were defeated. In my opinion you are going to have wars until you change the hearts of men, and instead of sending delegates all over the world to leagues and the UNO-and we are sending them all over the seven seas now- we should be sending out missionaries to them to change the hearts of men. Without that, war is never far off. I have already quoted in the house the exact words of Premier Attlee of Great Britain in calling the attention of the country to the present danger of war.
Civilizations arise and continue to exist- and all history is the witness to the truth-when conditions are hard, only when
they are continually threatened, only when they are determined to maintain and defend their rule. They decline and fall when the external pressure is removed, or the inner spirit decays. The surrender may disguise itself in many forms, of which humanitarian sentiment is one. F. S. Oliver wrote:
If a country will not stand up for its rights, it must surely lose them. The spirit of giving in is the most fatal disease to which nations are subject, and it is apt to attack them, like a cancer, when they have arrived at the meridian.
As W. MacNeil Dixon says, in "The Human Situation":
When England's day comes to an end the principles which have contributed to its coming, Christian, pacifist, or whatever they may be styled, will not thereby be strengthened. On the contrary, such is the irony which pervades things human, they will have brought about their own eclipse, their own dissolution, and all the triumph of the opposing principles. The decline and fall of England, which will rejoice her enemies, will not be England's decline and fall only, but of all for which she stood, and not till then shall we know the extent of our miseries. I. at least, am not of the opinion that humanity, justice, freedom or Christianity, will be gainers in that fall.
Next to the Christian faith no other agency has done so much for freedom, liberty and civilization as the mother country has done with the aid of the dominions. It has stood like the Rock of Ages. We should study the history of the empire and! learn what it has stood for in the way of defence. Do not forget that if the dominions do not hang together they will hang separately, as none is able to go it alone, and the mother country will become a small empire like a second Denmark on the edge of Europe. Quebec would have been invaded in the last war and so would Ontario and the maritime provinces if Britain had not extended her help to us in Canada by the fleet. This country went to the aid of Britain and France in the first great w'ar, and tens of thousands of our young men from the province of Quebec and other provinces lie buried in France until the resurrection morn.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, most speakers who have taken part in this debate have agreed that if United States forces are to come into this country a bill such as this to provide for their discipline and) internal administration is necessary. The main argument has revolved around the much wider question of the defence of Canada and, related to that, question, whether we should admit United States forces to this country and to what extent, if they are admitted, that would infringe upon our sovereignty. So far as these latter questions are
Visiting Forces

concerned, we must take a practical and realistic view. I think we are all agreed that we would like Canada to reach the theoretically perfect position of being able to look after our own defence entirely by ourselves, but the plain fact is that we have not one-quarter of the population which would be required to do that, so that in my view it is foolish to talk about it. Therefore we must depend upon the help of our natural friends and allies, the British empire and the United States.
There are a few members of this house who, judging from their remarks, do not believe in the united nations; but even they, I am sure, earnestly hope, as well as the rest of us, that the united nations will become an effective instrument to maintain world1 peace. At the present moment the fact is that it is not such an instrument and the prospects of its becoming such in the near future I think everyone will agree are not very good. Under such circumstances, it would in my opinion be absolute folly to rely on the united nations and not to take the best measures that are otherwise open to us for our own defence.
Our geographical position makes our defence and the defence of the United States one problem in these days. I think everybody who has looked into the question is convinced that any possible war which might break out will be waged, in the first instance at least, in the air, and the targets for that airborne attack will be the heavily industrialized areas of the northern part of the United States and the southern part of Canada. To win the war, the enemy would have to knock out that industrialized area and destroy our potential war-making capacity on this contintent. The areas, that is to say the land mass of Europe and Asia, from which any airborne attack could be launched, would send either planes, rockets or any other type of missiles against the targets I have indicated by the great circle routes passing over northern Canada. Those are just simple facts which practically everyone will admit. If that is so, it seems to me that the least we can do is to cooperate with the United States in setting up experimental stations in the north to devise, if it is possible to do so, a defence chain against a possible attack coming in over that area. Furthermore, I believe that a bill of this kind is necessary to enable us to do that; therefore I am in favour of it.
To me the whole situation stripped of what I would call probably the unessentials, comes down to this. Are we prepared to cooperate with the United States in the defence of this continent or not? The whole thing can boil down to that one question. To me it is
inconceivable that anyone should be opposed to such cooperation unless his sympathies lie with -the only possible aggressor at the present time. So far as I can see, the only possible aggressor for several years is Russia; or unless he is one who is desirous of introducing into this country a system of government and an economy which is similar to that practised in Russia. Apart from people of that kind, I find it inconceivable that anyone would oppose the idea of cooperation with the United States in the defence of this continent.
The people who appear to be afraid of this bill are allowing their desire for peace and for a successful united nations completely to obscure the realities of the position in which we are and in which the whole world is at the present time.
The attitude of the C.C.F., as exemplified by the speakers who have taken part in this debate seems to me to be essentially a return to the attitude adopted by the-m in the ten years prior to the outbreak of the war just concluded. It seems to me that their outlook on questions of this kind is exactly the same as that of many friends of mine in Calgary. In the period before the war, these people were all members of the -pacifist league and of this, that and the other thing. They advocated constantly that we should take no steps in the matter of military preparedness. I have had many of these people speak to me in a condescending and sneering way. They wondered why I was such a fool as to devote part of m-y time to militia training during the period. They seemed to insinuate that my intelligence was of a comparatively low order because I was wasting my time in such a way and held the view that another war might come and that we should prepare for it. As I say, I am afraid-and it alarms me-that the attitude of the C.C.F. at present is a return to that attitude. If that is so, it behooves all the rest of us to make sure that that attitude does not come in to anything like such widespread favour as it had in the period between the two wars, and result in our becoming so weak that another war would be brought on.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, "If you accept the possibility that there may be another war, then this bill may be sensible". If I have not quoted him correctly I am sure he will correct me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just conclude the sentence? The hon. member was quite correct so far as he went. I said, the possibility of another war and the possibility of the world surviving.

Visiting Forces


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member said, "If you accept the possibility that there may be another war". He then went on to say that he could not accept it. Following that, he began to talk about being realistic. If there is anything which is completely unrealistic I think it is that statement. Anybody who thinks about the question at all. must admit that there is the possibility of another war. You cannot escape it. As a matter of fact I would say that if you think at all you cannot escape that conclusion. Certainly there is a possibility of another war, and anybody who argues that there is not that possibility is completely shutting his eyes to the reality of the situation and of the world in which we are.
Personally I feel strongly that I, myself, and a large number of other people, have suffered enough during the six years of war which we have just gone through from theorists of that kind. In my opinion it is people with the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who were responsible to a large extent for the fact that there are now thousands of Canadian graves in Europe. It is all very well for these theorists to talk about the horrors of war and all that sort of thing, but hardly any of them have seen any of the horrors of war. Not many of them have seen their comrades killed or helped to bury them or helped to wash the blood from their hands. All they do, as a matter of fact, is to take the "holier than thou" attitude.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member will have his turn in a moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Privilege; sit down.


James Horace King: Order. Does the hon. member wish to raise a point of order?


Percy Ellis Wright: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman has just made a somewhat rash statement.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: A true statement.


Percy Ellis Wright: He said that members of this group had not seen the horrors of war. Well, I will say that if he will look through the records of the parliamentary guidte he will find that there are probably as many members of this group who have seen the horrors of war as there are in his own group.


James Arthur Ross: No, you won't; that was done.


Percy Ellis Wright: I ask you, sir, to ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the hon. member for Melfort; I referred to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other long-haired theorists with the same view, and I am not prepared to withdraw my statement. I did not suggest for a moment that there were not in the C.C.F. party men who had taken part in war.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member did suggest that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I suggest that the people who do most of the talking about these things in their party are the people who know nothing about it, and I still stand by that. Certainly the people who have talked in this debate are the people who do it every time and have no experience to talk from.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) seemed to be concerned with the fact that this bill would cause us to be swallowed up by the United. States and add a few stars to their flag. I do not believe-and I will say right now that I am a staunch upholder of the British connection and our Canadian nationality-that there is any danger of that whatever. I shall have no fears on that score at all. It is merely a bogey, a red herring, or whatever you wish to call it.
The C.C.F. amendment, so far as the wording goes, is innocuous. However, the accompanying speeches, those of the hon. member who proposed the amendment and those made by all the other members of that party, have made it abundantly clear that their purpose in moving this amendment was to send the bill to a committee, where it would die and that would be the end of it. In other words, it was their hope to kill the bill and get rid of it by having it referred to a committee.
That being so, I am going to vote against the amendment, and I sincerely hope it will be defeated. However I believe we should be given the answers to the questions which have been asked by many hon. members, particularly by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) when we consider the bill in committee of the whole. I trust the ministers concerned will answer these questions and make the whole situation as clear as. possible.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate at all, but now that I have decided to do so I shall begin my remarks by saying I agree with the statements which have been made by the members of my group. I was deeply impressed with the fairness of the statements made by Ihe hon. member for

Visiting Forces

Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdon-nell). I was impressed to some extent by some of the things said by the member for Varncouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). But I am not the least bit impressed by some of the things said by the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Gauthier).


An hon. MEMBER:: That is too bad.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, it is too bad. I am not even impressed by that. I presume the hon. gentleman who interjects can catch your eye later on, Mr. Speaker, and make whatever statement he wishes. If anyone thinks I have my head in the sand, of course that is his privilege.
Many things have been said which indicate a wide range of ideas in the house with regard to this bill. One or two things in it concern me particularly; and I hope that when I say what I have to say I shall not be accused of being a narrow nationalist. I do not want to be one of those people who can be described in that way. I may have some tendency in that direction, being a Canadian. I know there are members of this house who came here from some other country and made a useful and valuable contribution. I honour them. They have another place to look back upon as their home. This is the only home I have had, and it has been the home of my ancestors for 200 years. So, if I say some things that sound like narrow nationalism, I hope they will not be taken in that way, but that hon. members will understand them to mean simply that I like this country. I do not want any other country to look back upon. I want to stay here in my humble way to make this just as great a country as its possibilities will permit.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: You are too broad-minded to be looked upon as narrow-minded.


Thomas John Bentley: I thank the hon. gentleman for that statement. I might have included him among those with whom I could agree on some things; not in his sweeping indictment of the united nations, but in his references to family and community life, with which I agree most whole-heartedly. That is where our living begins; from there it expands, we hope, in friendship. We have tried to keep peace in our own family circles and communities, and I wish it could be done all over the world. I suggest for the consideration of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) that if we could bring the ideals of our families into the whole
world of nations we would accomplish a great deal. I know it is not easy, but it is worth trying. Anything that is good is worth trying. It is no use saying it is impossible until every avenue has been explored. It is far better to approach your neighbour or anyone with whom you are dealing by trying to discover the things on .which you can agree, than by trying to find the things upon which you disagree. I believe that is a good policy, a good philosophy; and if I were not a poor human sinner I would always try to carry it out.
I am going to say, in all honesty, that I do not see the necessity for this legislation, unless there is behind it some reason which I do not appreciate. If that should be the case it is all the more reason why I should support the motion to have it sent to a committee, where we can get the answers to these questions. As I say, if there is no move behind it, the act itself is not necessary. As a little boy I played around Halifax harbour; that was a long time ago. At that time Halifax was the headquarters of the Atlantic squadron of the British fleet, and the limeys came there whenever the fleet or any of the warships were in the harbour.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is a limey?


Thomas John Bentley: That is just a nickname
they give an English sailor. I should have called them English sailors, but the other word came so easily to me, and the Yankees always call them limeys. Occasionally a United States battleship would come to Halifax on a friendly mission. There was never a gun fired with any ball in it, though occasionally a few blanks may have been fired by way of celebration; and I remember that it was an occasion for great rejoicing among the young kids who were looking for adventure when someone would say, "There is an American warship in the harbour. There are some English warships there too. There will be a fight tonight down on the waterfront; let's go and see it." Of course immediately we ducked out the back doors away from our mothers and fathers and congregated down on Water street, outside the rum shops, until the battle started. And we would certainly enjoy it when the Yankees and the limeys got together. I expect there were broken noses and some bloodshed, but pretty soon the police came and broke it up and chased us away and the evening's adventure was over. That is about all there was to it. The law was enforced; and in spite of what happened on one occasion, Halifax is a law-abiding city.. They have officers who enforce the laws. I should like someone to tell me what

Visiting Forces
would prevent the same officers from exercising exactly the same discipline today as they exercised back in the early 1900's, when those warships came in. I give that as an illustration to support my argument that there is no reason for this legislation. We have the necessary law enforcement officers in this country, officers as good as can be found anywhere in the world.


Mr. CLAXTON:: The hon. gentleman has
asked a question. I can answer it at once if he will permit me. The answer is that service discipline would be exercised in respect of these British sailors the moment they got on their ships, which were there to take them off.


Thomas John Bentley: And I presume the same thing would be done in connection with the 1 ankee sailors, as they were called. Why can thrit not be done today? Why do we need an act today, when we did not require an act then?


Brooke Claxton: Because there are a few
Americans in Canada at places like Churchill, engaged in the joint testing arrangements with which hon. members are familiar, who are far away from United States soil.


Thomas John Bentley: That does not seem to
me like a very good reason; and here I am coming to where I may be accused of being a narrow nationalist. I want Canada to be an entity, a nation of our own. I do not want this to be taken as expressing any desire to break away from the British commonwealth of nations. That is not my desire at all. That is an association which has grown up, one which we have continued since we became independent. We are now mistress in our own home, not daughter in our mother's home. That relationship is there because we as a nation want it to be there, because we like it to be there. We have no such association with any other nation or group of nations in the world; and I see no need for troops of any other nation to be stationed here for military training, observation or anything else.
I think I have good reason for making that statement. If it were necessary to have troops here for those reasons, Denmark would have a claim, because that country has interests in Greenland, which I believe some people are saying are being threatened at the present time.
The United States has Alaska. Why can they not train there? That is northern territory. Why must it be necessary for us to have military collaboration with the United States in order to do this testing? Why can 83166-245J
it not be done on their own soil, if it is necessary? Again I want it to be understood that I am not anti-American. I have too many friends in the United States and too many friends in this country with relatives and friends in the United States for me to bear any ill will to the United States of America. I have nothing but the utmost friendliness for that country; there is nobody prouder than I am that we have that forty-ninth parallel without a fortification on it, and I hope there is never any need for one to be there. I believe that with all my heart. But I should like to see more freedom than there is in crossing that boundary for peaceful pursuits and less necessity for military personnel or equipment to go back and forth. Back as far as 1911, if I remember aright, an election was held in this country with reciprocity as the election issue. I was too young to vote at that time, but I remember being as active as a young person was allowed to be in promoting that idea. I would give serious consideration right now to promoting again, or anyway to thinking of establishing complete trade reciprocity with the United States. At that time the opponents to it said, "No truck or trade with the Yankees". Today 1 would be prepared to say, in all peaceful pursuits, any amount of truck and trade with the Yankees on the friendliest and best basis. Why can we not buy their motor cars as cheaply as they can sell them? They pay just as big wages as we do to the people who build their motor cars. Why do we not have them here at the same price?


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would ask him to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Thomas John Bentley: Quite right, Mr. Speaker. I expect I was getting far afield in this debate. There has been a slight tendency in that direction, I think you will admit, and I merely followed the tendency. Thank you for the correction, and I shall try not to do it. I was simply doing that, sir, to illustrate the reason why I do not think this bill is necessary if it simply means what it says. I would rather have peaceful pursuits than the interchange of military pursuits.
I come now to the matter of joint defence. There may come a time when it will be necessary. I am not a prophet or a seer, nor is anybody else in this house. In my lifetime I have listened to many people say that at such-and-such a time or in a certain number of years, so-and-so is going to happen, "because I think it is going to happen." I
Visiting Forces

cannot arrogate to myself the right to say what will happen in the future. All I can do is hope as an individual, and as a humble individual in a nation of individuals who, by the way, I hope are as strong morally as the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) said we were, but who, even he will have to admit, were not too strong numerically. But in spite of that, I believe we are strong enough to stand on our own feet and to make whatever we believe are necessary preparations for any future eventualities we can see either for peace or for war. When the issue is confronting us, when the decision has to be made, let us then decide, on the basis of the issue itself and our conscience at that time, which, if any, side we are going to take.
The. suggestion has been made by some who profess to look into the future, that the United States and Russia will likely be the antagonists in the next war and that Canada will be the battleground. I will admit that is a possibility. Anything is a possibility in this world that we live in, and always has been. But it is not inevitable that that will happen. It is not inevitable, on the checkerboard of politics in the international field, that finally these two tremendously strong nations will not find a way of resolving their differences. It is not even inevitable, if they do fight, that we have to be the battleground, although I will admit that is a strong possibility. But if we have to be the battleground, I should prefer Canada to be the battleground on one of two conditions. The first would be that we decide we would take no active part; we would declare ourselves neutral-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas John Bentley: Hold on a minute; don't laugh-and leave the responsibility for occupying our country on the nation which undertakes to do so in the face of our declaration of neutrality. That would be one choice which we would have. That may not be a pleasant choice. I will agree that would not be a pleasant choice. It will not be pleasant if we have a war. There will be nothing pleasant about it, no matter what our choice is. But I say that is a stronger moral choice than any other we could make.
On the other hand, we could make a second choice and decide which side we would be on. If we took the first choice, we would try to defend ourselves with whatever strength we had at our disposal; and with whatever courage we have, we would defend ourselves against the first nation which undertook to make our Canada their battleground. If we were not strong enough to resist them, at least

we would know that we had the courage to do all that our strength would permit us to do. If we took the second choice and decided we would take sides, then we would merge our military equipment and personnel on the side which we decided was the right one for us to engage on in the event of that war happening.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is that consistent with the policy of the C.C.F. in this house when they tried to cut my estimates for defence down to $1,000,000 before 1939?


Thomas John Bentley: I have made these statements in C.C.F. groups and have never had them disputed when I have taken this attitude there. So I must assume that I am not very far off the general thinking of the individuals who comprise this group.


Mr. GASTLEDEN:: Is it consistent with the united nations?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read the records of Hansard and they will tell you.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, this cross-fire with regard to looking into the records, back history and so on is all very well, but I expect that if we read all through the records of Hansard we should find a great many inconsistencies. Right from the beginning of my remarks, I have tried to refrain from party political recriminations against any individual or group in the house. I did that for the simple reason that I started out by saying that 1 am a humble and patriotic citizen of Canada. While I am prepared to fight any political group in this house on the political hustings on matters that concern us in a political way, this particular issue seems to me to be large enough to be able to command the support, if I am correct, of anybody with any political views who feels the same way as I do about Canada.
There is another thing that I wish to point out, dealing with this matter of war between the two nations which have been mentioned. I have heard fairly strong groups in Canada at times claim that Canada has gone to war at the behest of the United Kingdom government, that we were not independent, that when Britain declared war we were automatically at war. I have heard that claim criticized severely and vocally and, I think, sincerely by the people who indulged in the criticism. Since the Statute of Westminster, we have always claimed that -we had complete freedom in that regard, and that we do not have to do that. I would hate to see something happen which would put us in the position of having to go to war at the behest

Visiting Forces
of another nation, no matter which one it was, if we claim we do not necessarily have to follow the lead of Britain. But even if we did, let me draw this to the attention of the house, that the British people have a twenty-year peace pact with the Soviet Union. If we are a full-fledged and cooperative partner in the British commonwealth of nations, while we do not have to join any peace pact Britain happens to join, I think we should respect it. And if we are going to respect it, we should do nothing which might in any way arouse suspicion against us on the part of a nation with whom Great Britain at the present time has that twenty-year peace pact.
Let us see how this works out. I want to refer to the united nations, because I believe this whole thing is a part of that great organization which we are trying to build. The hon. member for Temiscouata has said it has no value, and I have heard other members say the same thing. I cannot prove that it has. But I suppose we are to have a united nations organization of some kind or another. We may be united as were Joe Louis and Billy Conn when they came together in conflict; when they were united only for a time. Or we may have peaceful relations. But it is likely that we shall have a united nations organization of one kind or another; and I prefer the peaceful kind.
At the present time the united nations may fall short of the glory of God. .But the fact remains that if we are to hope for the kind of cooperation and international understanding which I believe everyone here would like to have, regardless of their words, their thoughts or their expectations-and I believe all of us hope sincerely that we may have that-then we must realize that we need some kind of organization. The united nations is one way of trying to set up machinery which will make it possible to bring about that purpose.
Hon. members have heard me speak about cooperative enterprise before in the house; I believe in it. I believe in it, whether it is cooperation commercially, municipally or in local school districts. No matter where it is, it is cooperation. Like the hon. member for Temiscouata, I believe in our family homes, and that in those homes we want peace and1 harmony, comfort, well being, good will and affection. We want to have those families run as we in those families believe they should be run. We want no other families coming in to tell us how to handle our family affairs, and we have no right to go into other families and tell them how to handle theirs.
But when the two families meet on common ground, where there must be a sidewalk
or a road, then they must get together and agree, if they are both going to use community enterprise. They must agree, if they are to take the same responsibilities as to where and how these things shall be built, and what they will be used for. That applies to school districts, to municipalities, to provinces, to the dominion, and it applies to relations between nations which go to make up a commonwealth such as the British commonwealth of nations. And this goes through to the rest of the world, if we are to have peace and harmony in the united nations.
Because of that, I must pin some faith in the united nations, because if we do not have that, then we have the other kind of unity, the kind where tremendous bodies are locked in warfare. And let me point this out, that if we choose that road-and I do not think we shall do so deliberately-but if we choose it ill-advisedly, then we shall subject our children and our grandchildren to unbelievable horrors.
I have helped bury the dead, I would remind the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness). I have seen men die around me. I have been through some of those conflicts, as have other hon. members in the house. Indeed, I believe all groups are well represented in that respect. I d'o not want to see that happen again. But if the new weapons we are told about are even a quarter as powerful as it is said they are, then what we have seen before will be only a tea-party compared with what the magnitude of another war might be. Because of that, I believe we should be most careful in doing anything at all in the parliament of this country which might possibly fan the fires and flames of suspicion which are already too greatly extended across the world at the present time.
I have said1 these things earnestly and honestly, sincerely believing that I am right in what I have said. And I do wish hon. members would send this bill to a committee until we can get every bit of information with respect to it. If it can be proven to me that this is a better and a necessary thing to do, more necessary than anything we have done before, then I shall withdraw my opposition to it, and gladly. But I should like to know the complete story.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak in this debate; but, since it began, several thoughts have passed through my mind.
I am not going to oppose sending the bill to the appropriate committee, because if it goes' there witnesses can be called and the whole matter investigated from every angle.
Visiting Forces

Hon. members will not be deterred from further discussion when the bill returns from committee. But in connection with the bill, and] with respect to what has been said in the last two days, let me say we must face the fact that we live in a most unsettled world. When I say that I am not for one moment saying that any nation in the world wants war. I do not believe any nation today wants war for the simple purpose of having war; and I am not accusing any nation of any such intention.
But it must be recognized and. we must face the reality that we do live in an unsettled world and, to my mind, it is the height of common sense for governments to care for the defence of their country. All countries do it, and it is the height of common sense for this government to care for the defence of Canada. When one speaks about defence he should not be branded as a warmonger. It is only common sense to lock one's door at night. It is the height of foolishness for one to say, "I am going to lock my door tonight, but I hope, it will not aggravate my enemy. I realize there may be some, enemies lurking around. There may be some who have an eye on my possessions. There may be others who for some reason or another do not like me. Perhaps I should leave my door open tonight, in case, by locking it, I aggravate my friends." People do not talk in that way and, as far as I am concerned, when it comes to national defence we have to look at the matter just as realistically as that.
I would suggest that the present government have a little larger picture and conception of things as they exist in the world than we, though we be members of parliament, could ever hope to have. I am not saying that we should not feel perfectly free to express ourselves on any matters relating to defence, but I think we have to recognize that when it comes to matters of defence, obviously everything is not exposed to the whole world. There are things that go on behind the scenes. There are negotiations and exchanges of information between one country and another. No doubt the present government which sits opposite have exchanged views with other countries, and I fancy the reason they are proposing this measure is based largely upon information they have received or conclusions they may have arrived at because of the exchange of views.
The hon. member who preceded me referred to the twenty-year pact between Great Britain and Russia. I think that is a commendable thing. I should hope that we would have no
trouble, not only for the next twenty years or fifty years, but perhaps for the next 100 years, or indefinitely. Even though there is a pact between those two great nations, let us remember that the British government have put in a more rigid form of conscription. In so doing, surely they considered whether such a step would render negotiations of the united nations less effective. Yet that government being a government very similar to hon. members to my right in its objectives, saw fit to take rather more adequate measures with respect to their defences. I say this with the utmost care. Surely a government should not be criticized when they show a desire to protect our interests, especially when they are right on the field, perhaps having their hands more upon the pulse of world situation than ours are.
I do not wish to be presumptuous, nor do I wish to sound a note of suspicion; but, as I said at the commencement of my remarks, all is not well. History records that sometimes agreements become scraps of paper. I hope that will not happen, but sometimes it does. In the light of that, it seems to me that' the nations of the world should arrive at a particular definition as to what an aggressor nation really is. How are we to describe an aggressor nation? How are we to know when some nation makes a move that can be termed "aggressive"? It seems to me that that is a question which should be settled in some way or another. I should like to put on the record a definition of "aggressor" which was proposed some years ago by Mr. Litvinov, at that time soviet commissar for foreign affairs, and adopted by representatives of the Soviet Union, Roumania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan, meeting in London at the convention for the definition of "aggression" on July 3, 1933. The definition runs as follows:
. . . The aggressor in an international conflict shall ... be considered to be that state which is the first to commit any of the following actions:
1.	Declaration of war upon another state;
2.	Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another state;
3.	Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state;
4.	Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another state;
5.	Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another state or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded states, to take in its own territory all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

Visiting Forces
No political, military, economic or other consideration may serve as an excuse or justification for the aggression referred to . . .


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I would remind the hon, member that the bill before the house is to make provision with respect to the forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada. I realize that a wide latitude has been allowed hon. members during the debate, but I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks more directly to the bill under consideration.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall not digress; as a matter of fact, I am through with my speech anyway. I would suggest that something along the line of what I have read be redefined in order that we may know definitely what constitutes aggression. I am not opposed to the bill and, I shall not be opposed to it going to committee. I do not think we can expect the government to reveal its hand in this case when the bill is in ' committee. I must say that, because I recognize that, no matter which party forms the government of the day and has the responsibility for the defence of the country, it cannot always reveal its hand.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise after listening to this debate to express my support of the motion to refer the bill to a committee. I shall make a few comments and express a few ideas in connection with this bill which has provoked a most fortunate and interesting discussion. I say most fortunate because, while the bill at first sight appears somewhat unimportant and technical, its implications are very wide under world conditions today.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the excellent opening speech by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) and to the factual presentation of his argument by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and I appreciated very much the, shall I say, moderate and wise remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) as well as a great deal of what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) had to say. So far as this debate is concerned, there can be no question that this side of the house has made the most constructive contribution to the discussion.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in replying last night, said that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave his statement to the house no opposition was expressed in the house and none in the country. I think that is quite correct, but when the Prime Minister reads a statement to the house we have no opportunity to reply
and express our opinions. So far as the country is concerned, the minister's statement is quite correct. But I think the minister will realize that the great majority of the members of this house, on reading the Prime Minister's statement, were under the impression that only a few technical personnel were being considered. Yet in this discussion the hon. member for Vancouver South has suggested that, possibly a division of United States troops might be brought into this country, and we heard no denial or protest from the Minister of National Defence or from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent).
Since the Prime Minister made his statement, there has been a change of foreign policy in the United States. The Truman foreign policy is now in effect. That is why I maintain that, while the mechanical features of this bill may seem unimportant and routine, the attitude of many people to the Prime Minister's statement regarding collaboration with the United States in defence has changed to some extent.
I wish to support strongly the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I shall not repeat them, but I think he presented a logical and valid argument in connection with this bill and for its reference to the committee. I want to support whole-heartedly his urging upon the government to do everything possible at this time to show our strong support for collective security and the principles of the united nations.
Personally I deplore the tendency on the part of some hon. members who have spoken in this debate of two great power groups in the world, the U.S.S.R. and the United States, to underestimate as it were the strength of the British commonwealth of nations. In the first place, I urge upon this government to do everything possible to avoid any public appearance of departure from support of the united nations. In addition, because of our membership in the British commonwealth of nations and because of our geographical position, I urge that we stand shoulder to shoulder in these matters with the other members of the commonwealth, because while Great Britain is in financial difficulties at the present time and the influence of the British commonwealth of nations may appear to be somewhat lessened, I have so much confidence in the balance and stability and traditions and in the future of the British commonwealth of nations that if peace is to be maintained in this world in the future I believe that it will be done as a result of the balanced stability, influence and moral character of the people of the British commonwealtl of nations. I urge,
Visiting Forces

Mr. Speaker, that Canada take a strong hand in that connection and not allow herself, even by implication, to be included in one power bloc or the other. In these difficult times there are so many people who see everything in black or in white, who are prejudiced, whose opinions are fixed. May I say that it is not a question of peace or victory; it is a question of peace or disaster. The last war has shown that there can be no victor, except in a military sense, in modern war in this modern world. It is not peace or victory; it is peace or disaster. I urge that we do everything possible to back the united nations as a great balancing and useful force at this critical time.
I consider that the government has not been quite frank with the house. The replies of the minister to date have given us information that we did not have before. For instance, while many of us thought, and reasonably so, that the visiting United States forces would comprise a small number of technical men, we are now told that it is possible, without any consultation of parliament, for the commander in chief of the Canadian army to invite any number of troops into this country. I am sure that all hon. members are keen on the proper defence of this country. But we have to look at this question from every aspect, and because I believe that the members of this house and the people of this country should have an opportunity to obtain full information on the implications of this bill and its relationship to the international situation today I intend to support the motion to refer the bill to a committee.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, as I read this bill I do not consider it one on which this house should divide on party lines. First, who sponsors the bill? The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). In that he doubtless cooperates and collaborates with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton); and, knowing both of these men, is there anyone in this house who for a moment would say that they would support legislation in this House of Commons detracting from the best interests of the Dominion of Canada or do anything that would lessen our pride in Canada of which we are all so proud? I, for one, cannot bring myself to think that of them.
During this debate I have heard so many straw men built up and then knocked down by brave volleys of words, straw men with nothing of reality to them but wonderful to talk about and wonderful to attack gravely.
We have to face the fact that this Dominion of Canada is greater in area than the United States of America, and also that we

have a population of probably less than 12,000,000 people, whereas the United States has a population of some 130,000,000, and in our population of 12,000,000 there is a majority of women and children. So who are we to defend such a vast area successfully under modern methods of warfare? In our time the method of warfare has completely changed. As I grew up from childhood to young manhood, to manhood, I, like everyone else in this house, complacently felt that we were defended by the British navy and the British army; that we Canadians did not need to raise a hand to defend ourselves. It is true that that we sent a contingent to the South African war, but what did that mean in the long run in that war? The Canadians deported themselves well. They have done it in two great world wars, but alone we could not have had very much effect on the result of either of those wars. I think we are fortunate to be on the friendly terms that we are with the powerfully great nation bordering on our southern border. It is reasonable, it is sensible that Canada and the United States should cooperate in matters of defence and, if necessary, in matters of offence. We should exchange ideas as to defence, ideas as to attack and ideas as to armament.
WThat happened in the last war? Two big nations, dictator nations, Germany and Italy, undertook to conquer the democratic world. The British empire and commonwealth of nations took on the defence of the small nations that had been attacked by the dictatorship of Germany. The British commonwealth of nations consisting of Great Britain, the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Newfoundland, with France and the great United States of America saved democracy from dictatorship. But during that war the attacking dictators attacked another dictatorship, Russia. Who saved that dictatorship? The same democratic nations. If they had not stepped in and gone to Russia's defence Germany would have defeated Russia just as surely as we are here tonight. And the democracies of the world got little credit for it. It is no surprise that the democratic nations sitting at the peace table with a nation of dictators are having trouble arriving at a just peace. But I hope that they will overcome these difficulties successfully as they have in the past.
When that dictator nation was attacked by the attacking dictator nations that were fighting against us as democracies, what happened here in Canada? An element that up to that time was doing all it could to impede and injure Canada in the war, sud-

Visiting Forces
denly, overnight, became ultra loyal and wanted to see the democracies win. Why? Not because of their admiration or love or loyalty to Canada, but because of their comrades over in Russia. The communists, the so-called Labour Progressive party, were more concerned about the fate of Russia than of Canada.
I am particularly impressed and pleased with the provisions of section 4 of the bill. Although we are not in committee of the whole considering the bill section by section, we are considering the principle, and in my opinion this is one of the chief principles in it.
Nothing in section 3 of this act shall affect the jurisdiction of any civil court in Canada to try a member of a United States force for any act or omission constituting an offence against any law in force in Canada whether or not proceedings with respect to such act or omission have been instituted by a United States service authority or before a United States service court.
That is as it should be. In the war that so recently came to an end, we had a large force of the United States army come into Canada to carry out war measures, to build the Alaska highway, to tap our oil wells on the Mackenzie river and pipe them across to a refinery which they built in Yukon territory. The government of Canada, by an agreement with the government of the United States, sold the rights of Canadian civilians down the river. Canadian civilians injured, damaged or attacked by United States soldiers could not take them to a Canadian court. If they suffered an injury they had to take the award of a workmen's compensation board sitting where-in Canada? No, down in the state of New Jersey. They had to take it and like it. And if a United States soldier by his carelessness-and there were many instances of it-severely injured a Canadian civilian, committed property damage or personal damage, the Canadian citizen could not take it to court. He had to put up with what the United States army chose to give him. In one case a Canadian civilian driving his own truck lawfully, conforming with the rules of the road, was crashed into by a United States truck driven by a United States soldier. The Canadian truck was damaged so that it became utterly useless. The Canadian driver was injured. Both of his feet were , driven down through the floor of his truck; his leg was broken in two places above the knee; his pelvis was broken; his spine was injured and he will be a cripple for life. They had to cut the steering wheel with a hacksaw to get him out of the truck. The United States army offered to pay for the truck, the hospital and doctor bills. '1'hey have now 83166-246
consented to give him perhaps the munificent sum of S8,000. They will give it if the United States congress is good enough to vote the money, and not otherwise. If these conditions are prevented by this section of the bill I would support it, if for no other reason.
I could go on and tell of other instances that happened during, as they called it, the American occupation. When called upon the telephone, they would say "The American army of occupation speaking." That happened here in Canada. For my part, I say that this is a proper, useful and necessary legislation for this Canadian parliament to pass and I propose to support it.


Anthony Hlynka: Personally I have no great objection to sending Bill No. 253 to the external affairs committee, but I think a good purpose has been served by allowing a number of hon. members to speak on this measure. I believe that the speeches which have been delivered so far are a fair indication of the views of hon. members on this important subject.
Many critics of the bill seem to be possessed with the idea that Canada is going to declare war on some nation in the near future, when in reality such is not the fact. Some hon. members criticized the bill, and they have said repeatedly that they did so because they want peace in this world. Well, who does not? By passing this bill, would we run the risk of getting into a war sooner than we would if the bill did not pass this house? I am not at all surprised that some hon. members should hold definite views in opposition to this bill, but I must admit that I was surprised to hear strange ideas expressed by several hon. members who are usually reliable in their thinking. One hon. gentleman stated that we should refuse to tolerate the idea that war is coming. I am sure all hon. members agree that no one in Canada wants war, and that perhaps no one in any other nation wants war. But surely that hon. gentleman must agree that, even if there is no likelihood of war, it is better for our people to be on guard than to tell them there will be no war and have them unprepared, as they were in 1939. Really I cannot understand how a responsible individual could believe that it is in Canada's interests to tell our people there will be no war-even though he does not know any more about it than I do-rather than to warn them of the possibil-[DOT] ity. I subscribe to the view that we should be on guard at all times; I think that is a good policy.
While I am on this point, I should like to mention one other matter. During the Easter recess, while I was on my way out west, .1

Visiting Forces

was a guest of a friend of mine who also invited a number of Canadians holding prominent positions. These men of learning began to discuss the question of defence, and one expressed the fear that Canada might provoke war. So he appealed to me and others to do everything within our power to see that the secrets of atomic energy were handed over to our "friends". He stated that he had formed his opinion on -that subject following a certain lecture by a prominent physicist at one of our universities, who told him that now this question was so serious that the Canadian people must do something about it. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members should take advice in military matters from military men. It is not enough for one to rise in his place and pretend to know everything about everything. This is not a small political issue. This is not a by-election. This is a serious matter, concerning the future of this nation. Surely we should have enough faith in our military men to take -their advice in matters of this kind and not assume that we have a knowledge and depth of understanding concerning these problems greater than anyone else.
Would anyone suggest, that- in the event of a war it would not be in Canada's interests to stand together with our neighbour? Would anyone suggest that it would be a good policy for Canada to stand idly by and await developments? I should like to ask hon. gentlemen who have been criticizing this measure and have expressed opposition to it to telll this house and the country whether they feel that Canada would be justified in taking the course they are advocating, if we were attacked in a surprise-war, and had not made preparations together with the United States in regard to defence. Surely they could not say that. Yet now they are trying to convince this house that it is not in Canada's interest to cooperate with the United States.
I am not of Anglo-Saxon origin, -but I do not believe any hon. member in this house is more pro-British than I am. In diplomatic affairs I believe the United Kingdom still leads the world-; I am frank in making that statement. In economic and monetary matters it is true the United States has taken over the lead; but the United States has still a great deal to learn when it comes to matters having to do with various European countries, and world diplomacy. The British have had a great deal of experience in these matters, and of course experience counts. At the same time I maintain that- it is in our interests to cooperate with the United States in order that we may arrange our hemispheric defence
[Mr. Hlynka.l
programmes. We did that during the war, * and why should we not have this understanding with our good neighbour to the south during peace time?
Some may say this is peace time, and as a matter of fact some hon. members have stated that they would not object to our entering into this understanding with the United States if this were a time of war, but they are opposed to it now because this is peace time. What a shallow argument! I maintain that the war which began in 1914 was not concluded, and that it continued. We say a war breaks out, but that is not so; it is peace that breaks out now and then. From 1914 to 1918 we had a period of military warfare. Then there was a breathing spell. The struggle continued again from 1939 to 1945, and today it is still continuing short of military warfare. The fight is going on every day in the councils of the united nations, in the press, over the radio, and so on. Let me just quote from a press dispatch which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning, June 5, 1947:
Budapest, June 4-(AP)-Soviet Lt.-Gen. V. P. Sviridov has refused permission for an American officer to inspect military installations of Hungary, a former enemy country, American spokesmen disclosed today. The soviet action raised speculation that the Russians may already be taking a hand in training the Hungarian army.
Then farther down in the article:
American spokesmen said Colonel _ John _ H. Stokes. Jr., of San Francisco, executive officer of the United States military mission asked War Minister Lajos Dinnyes, now the new procommunist premier, for permission to inspect a Hungarian division. Ordinarily such a request would be a mere formality in view of relations between a victor power and a defeated former enemy.
To Stokes' surprise, however, Dinnyes replied that such a visit would have to be approved by the allied control commission.
Sviridov, acting chairman of the allied control commission, without consulting the American member of the commission, replied that the proposed inspection would be impossible.
Does that not mean war, Mr. Speaker? It is war in fact, but just short of actual military operations. There is this fighting going on, on all fronts. Let us not delude ourselves that this is peace time. Until such time as the principles of freedom and Christianity are supreme in this world, there can be no peace. When we have one set of rules applying to the so-called big nations and another set of rules applying to the so-called little nations, what sort of peace have you? Talk of peace! In reality there is no such thing now. What about the small nations of the world?

Visiting Forces
Recently in the mailbox I received several maps. Other hon. members must have received them also. May I read from the map? I am sorry that the shorthand reporter will not be able to take it down because this is in Russian (a map of Finland). I could review the whole map for you. I understand that it is our own Department of External Affairs which is distributing these maps in Russian to members of parliament. What is wrong with the English language? I am going to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) to tell me whether he has as yet received a future map of Canada in the Russian language. Here is another one, and this one is (in Russian, "a map of Roumania").


Mr. FULTON:: What does that mean?


Anthony Hlynka: Map of Roumania. That is another one.


Pierre Gauthier: In Russian, too?


Anthony Hlynka: It is in Russian, too. I understand that these are also distributed by our own Department of External Affairs. What is wrong with us? This thing has gone too far. Our own members of parliament spent two days in pleading the cause of a nation about which they know absolutely nothing, including my good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


An hon. MEMBER:: He was there.


Ernest George Hansell: He was there for eight days.


Anthony Hlynka: He speaks in this house with such great authority about Russia that he asks that we should take his word for it and not prepare for defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a question of privilege. I was not pleading the cause of Russia. I was pleading the cause of world peace.


Anthony Hlynka: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get at odds with my hon. friend because, once they start me going, there will again be a row. I do not want to lose every one of them as my friends, because some of them are my good friends. I like them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Da da.


Anthony Hlynka: There you are, Mr. Speaker. He speaks Russian to me now. You may not have understood it, Mr. Speaker, but he just approved what I said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was, oui, oui.


Anthony Hlynka: I should now like to proceed from there. As I said, I do not want to get into a fight, because then we would spend too 83166-246J
much time. Hon. members who criticize the bill maintain that the bill violates the spirit of the united nations, and helps to divide the world into two antagonistic blocs. They also state than any arrangement into which we may enter with the United States carries with it serious implications. What sort of nonsense is that? Why should any arrangement with the United States carry any serious implications as far as we. are concerned? We are living in this hemisphere; we speak the same language, and. our interests are similar. The United States has always shown a friendly attitude toward this nation. Surely if they wanted to, all they have to do is to come across and take this country, but they do not do it; they are not doing it. If anyone attacks this country, my hon. friends who protest so strongly against this bill would certainly get on the telephone as quickly as they couldi and ask President Truman and General Marshall to come right over. They certainly would do that, and they would be the first ones to do it. Yet what reason is there for this argumentation for two days, advising the government and pleading with ministers not to protect the borders of Canada? That sort of reasoning does not appeal to me.
I should like to say just a-word about the principle of sovereignty. ' My hon. friends immediately to the right of me have for years been advocating the giving up of Canada's sovereignty. They have been the strongest advocates of surrendering Canada's sovereignty to some super power that they do not know and we do not know, a power that, to my knowledge has not done anything for Canada and has not shown any good result so far. Yet they keep on pleading with the people, and delivering speeches all across this country, telling the Canadian people that we must give up a part of our sovereignty. Now, when we are on this issue, they switch right around and are the great champions of retaining Canada's sovereignty. Mr. Speaker, our friends should be more consistent. There must be some balance to their thinking, or to their switching. They just cannot go on in that way.
I should like to refer to the various international organizations. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the various international organizations which have been organized thus far have been, and are today, the instrument of internationalism and the vehicles of communism, however disguised. I have seen the workings of some of our international organizations; I have followed the workings of some of our international organizations before. And it is my sincere view that a nation as powerful as the United Kingdom, as experienced as
Visiting Forces

it is in statecraft, and the United States also are being pushed around in the united nations organization.
I have no objections to an international organization that would work in the interests of liberty and freedom, principles that are fair to all nations, big and small; but not when you have a few large nations running the entire world and forming their blocs. And they do it right along. Then, as my hon. friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said, they waste time in pretending that we are getting somewhere. We are not. We must rely on our own strength; we must rely on the strength of those who have, proven in the past to be our friends. That is the only safe thing for us to do.
During the past few years too many of our leading men became obsessed with the so-called global philosophy. We have been hearing public men speaking about things on a global scale. One country seems to be too small for these gentlemen. This talk is something like certain types of medicine. It might be good for one, if it is administered in certain amounts. But if one takes an overdose of it, the result is suicide. The same is true of this global philosophy-and I was going to use the word "globaloney," including global loyalty, world-wide this and world-wide that. In my opinion this prescription has been administered to excess.
Let me explain in a word what I mean. In recent years many public men have been advancing and emphasizing unduly the theory of the global approach to political, economic and social problems as the only solution for them.
Now, words fail me: it is pure-well, nonsense! Surely not a single member in the house can point to very many results of which we can be proud, in the past, which have been achieved by some international organization. But we can point to results which the United States achieved in guarding freedom of its citizens, and which we have in Canada in being able to voice our opinion as freely as a lark. The British commonwealth has a tradition and a reservoir of experience incomparably beyond that of any other nation in the world. There is the example; let us follow it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken in the house before on any subject related to international affairs and, normally, I should prefer not to speak on that subject, but rather to leave it to those who have had some experience in it, and whose experience would therefore lend their words added weight. But some of the impli-

cations behind this bill, together with some of the things said in discussion, have made me think there is a certain point of view which at least should be expressed, certain questions which at least should be asked and to which I should hope answers might be given before, speaking personally, I would be in a position to vote intelligently on this bill.
At the outset I would say I am in entire agreement with those who speak in support of the necessity for cooperation in the defence of this country with those countries which are friendly and willing to help us. But I also associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), namely that we should know the policy behind the bill before we rush into the acceptance of this legislation which, it seems me, indicates that a new policy is now in force in Canada; because it is surely obvious that this bill can have no meaning; and can have no application, unless United States troops are to be allowed into Canada. And the bill applies exclusively to United States troops. So I refer to them, not with any suggestion that it is undesirable that United States troops be admitted, but merely because they are the only ones affected by the bill.
It is a new policy, in that Canada is now inviting United States troops into this country on a basis and under conditions which Canada has never extended to any other troops before in peace time. We should ask at the outset how many troops are here and how they came here. We should ask what exactly were the terms upon which they were admitted, for how long we expect them to stay, and if we expect any large increase in their number.
In the course of my remarks, which I intend shall be brief, I shall state why I think it is important that these questions be answered. But before going farther, may I say that the fact we are left without an answer to these questions at the present time, and indeed much of the discussion which has taken place in connection with the bill-discussion which, to some extent, is being carried on in the dark so far as members of the opposition are concerned-illustrates again the desirability of setting up a defence committee such as has been suggested in the house in the past. If we had such a committee we would have full information and would know the reasons behind such legislation before being asked to discuss it.
One of the most significant statements made thus far in the discussion of the bill was that made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent)

Visiting Forces
in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). This was the statement of the minister, as reported at page 3792 of Hansard for June 4, 1947:
I think His Excellency

He was referring to the governor general.
-as commander in chief of the Canadian forces, can do such things as are not contrary to Canadian law and which he thinks are advisable for the preparation of the defences of the country.
Later he said, as reported on the same page:
I think the commander in chief of the Canadian forces can take such measures as his ministers are prepared to assume responsibility for to the parliament, and to the country, so long as they do not infringe any enactment made by parliament.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Would the hon.
member permit me to interrupt? I do not think it is fair, or really that it is proper, that in this house there should be drawn from an answer to a theoretical legal question the inference that that implies any intention whatsoever to depart from a policy which, in fact, was stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on February 12. I am sure the hon. member would not want to create the impression that there was anything being kept in the dark. I was asked a theoretical legal question and I endeavoured to answer it as such. I assure the hon. member that it contained no implication of any intention - or thought of there being anything more contemplated now than was expressed in the Prime Minister's declaration on February 12.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry the minister
did not allow me to proceed with my next two sentences, because then I think he would have understood that what I had in mind was not to suggest that his statement, which as he said was made in answer to a legal question, suggested going beyond the policy already announced. But, in the light of the previously announced policy as to the basis upon which other troops would be invited to the country, the statement suggests, to me at any rate, the possibility that troops in larger numbers and for purposes somewhat different from what parliament itself understands might be invited into the country without the knowledge of the House of Commons. That is the danger which I see in the principle stated by the minister. I see that apparently he still does not think what I am saying is fair, although I want to be fair.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I am not suggesting
that the hon. member should not say anything he likes, provided that the danger he conjures up is one of his own making and is not derived from a statement attributed to me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister made the
statement, I did not. However, that is only the first point. The statement is there and the practice of inviting troops in is being followed. If is obvious that hon. members do not know at the present time in what numbers United States troops are in the country or in what numbers they may be invited here in the future. That fact becomes more serious when it is realized that the present practice is a considerable departure from the policy announced previously in the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am going to refer to the statement he made in 1938, not merely for political purposes, but because I think his statement laid down very clearly the policy which the Prime Minister felt should govern as far as Canada's relations with the troops of other countries were concerned. I read this for the purpose of showing that what is happening now is a departure from that policy. The words of the Prime Minister may be found on page 4527 of Hansard of July 1, 1938, and they are:
Such domestic ownership, maintenance and control of all military stations and personnel-
"Personnel" is the important word here.
*-is one of the really indispensable hallmarks of national sovereign self-government.
He then went on to say:
Outside its homeland a state may have military stations and quarter military personnel in countries which it "owns"

Canada is not owned by the United States. -in its colonies-
Canada is not a colony of the United States. -or "possessions," or in its mandated territories according to the trust deed, or in countries over which it has assumed or been yielded, by some , arrangement, what amounts to a protectorate. '
Canada does not fall into' any one of those classifications in so far as the United States is concerned. I want here to refer to what was said last night by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) when the matter was being discussed. The hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt), in referring to the new practice, said that we could not see this new practice being introduced without some misgivings and without a desire that the House of Commons should be fully informed. The Minister of National Defence said, as reported on page 3812 of Hansard:
There is nothing new' about it whatever.
I have read the words of the Prime Minister to show that there is something new about it. There do not exist, so far as Canada is concerned, any of those relationships which he said must exist before a country could quarter
Visiting Forces

its military personnel upon another country's soil. It is important that we should realize fully the implications of the policy behind this bill. It is a new departure, something which Canada has never done before, and I think it justifies fully the extent of the discussion which has taken place in connection with the measure. That is why I say it is important that we should have answers to the questions which I have suggested before we are called upon to make our final decision on this particular bill.
There is one other suggestion I want to put forward, and in putting it forward I preface my remarks again by saying that I would rather leave authoritative announcements on international affairs to those with more experience. But I think this is a point of view which should be expressed in the hope that perhaps it will be discussed by someone with that experience. I wonder if the background of this bill does not indicate that there is some danger that Canada is entering into too close a tie-up with the United States. I am not suggesting in any way that we should not cooperate with them in defence, but I am suggesting that we should be careful not to rush into their arms and to throw in our lot with them to the exclusion of all our other interests and disregarding those quarters where our ties have previously lain.
I should like to read some quotations with regard to the recent announcement by the President of the United States in connection with hemispheric defence policies. First, I should like to read a report in the Chicago Daily News of Monday, May 26, as follows:
President Truman today asked congress for authority to arm, equip and train the armed forces of western hemisphere nations, including Canada.
And again:
The legislation asked would authorize the President to make agreements with other western hemisphere nations to train and instruct their military and naval personnel.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think it was stated here in the house that that report is entirely erroneous. There is nothing in that act which concerns Canada. The only statement made was that it was in a form which could be extended to Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Canada is one of the countries in the western hemisphere, and, as the minister suggests, that is the only way in which Canada entered into the sphere of that act. The act was not aimed directly at or passed with the immediate intention of bringing armed forces into Canada. I read the report merely as illustrative of the present

United States policy. The report continues: that the President may make arrangements with other countries to:
. . . maintain, repair and rehabilitate their naval and military equipment. Transfer to them arms, ammunition and implements of war.
The third is a dispatch from Washington dated March 6, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 7, 1947, and which reads:
The United States is considering a proposal to increase the number of American troops working with the Canadian forces in military studies at Churchill, Manitoba.
Such action would be a further step to implement the Canada-United States agreement for collaboration in common defence.
I am not suggesting that there is anything improper in what is revealed in those announcements. I am not suggesting that it is improper or undesirable for Canada and the United States to cooperate, but I do suggest that we should consider carefully the implications of the steps which apparently we are being asked to take. We should have definite information how far along the road and in what direction these steps will lead us.
I wish to refer to something the hon. member for Vancouver South said last night. Everybody in the house is agreed that it is essential that we should adopt any and every method which may lessen the possibility of another war. It seems to me that one of the factors making most directly for another war would be to have the world divided into two power blocs, because they cannot avoid coming into direct conflict at almost every stage. But if there were three or more groups of powers the danger of direct conflict would be that much further removed, because there would be three or more different pulls of interest. It is with that thought in the back of my mind that I say we should be careful to understand what we are doing, and we should be careful not to transfer entirely to the United States all the community of interest and collaboration which, under the traditional background of our policy and interests, have lain elsewhere.
There is one concrete suggestion I should like to put forward, and that is that it would be preferable if, instead of having a separate bill dealing with the United States, we passed an act in the form of their own Friendly Foreign Forces Act to which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) referred last night, a general bill capable of extension to the troops of any country which Canada sees fit to admit to our own soil. I think that would be a more appropriate way of dealing with this matter. The other way would be to conclude a treaty with the United States, so

Visiting Forces
that we would not have on our statute books a permanent policy which could be changed only with great difficulty and with the possibility of creating further international friction.
I think that is all I have to say at the moment. In conclusion, I want to repeat that the views I have put forward are not intended in any way to be dogmatic, although I do feel keenly about them myself. They are put forward because I think they should be considered befhre we are asked to pass this bill. I, at any rate, request an answer to the questions asked before we are required to vote.
Mr. GEORGES H. HEON (Argenteuil): Mr. Speaker, as I studied the bill before the house I was reminded of an article written in the January, 1946, issue of Foreign Affairs, under the signature of Lionel Gelber, entitled "Canada's New Stature". Mr. Gelber states:
In that momentous redistribution of world power now taking place, Canada must be classed with those nations which have gained rather than lost in stature. Her increased importance exemplifies the shift toward a system of international affairs founded on centres of authority removed from western and central Europe. For Canada has undergone a far-reaching diplomatic revolution. In some respects this is admitted and proclaimed by her leaders; in other respects it is concealed. Canada is one of the few countries among the united nations in which the prewar helmsmen of the ship of state are still at their posts. They are in fact steering a new course, but since they are loath to confess that their seamanship ever was at fault, they prefer to describe it merely as accelerated progress along the old one. They can put it in such terms because external affairs are seldom major issues in Canadian politics and neither politicians nor officials have been judged in Canada, as elsewhere among the democracies, on their pre-war records.
But the evidence of Canada's new position in the world is unmistakable.
The bill before this house establishes a momentous precedent, the consequences of which no one at this moment can fully visualize. Bluntly, the bill means that there will be United States armed forces in undefined numbers on Canadian territory in peace time and that they will have their own military laws and courts. In theory this move is repugnant to our muoh vaunted sovereignty, and in this hour of internationalism I am very much afraid that further offences against sovereignty will be committed, as they have been openly and sometimes cruelly committed in the last few years. However, Canada must act according to her own situation in a changing world which has put her at the cross-roads of the Big Five.
No longer is Canada, as was stated at the Versailles treaty making, a fireproof house far away from incendiary materials.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) stated, to my mind, quite correctly, our position when he said that we may be the nut in the Russian-American nutcracker. But we cannot change this position, hard as we may try, although the position itself may be unenviable and is not of our own choosing. I believe that we must face the facts cooly, because we are pledging our own interests to hemispheric defence, and we cannot antagonize our powerful neighbour to the south. Rather should we accommodate him as much as we can. If the joint defence plan calls for United States troops to be on Canadian soil in peace time we cannot logically or intelligently oppose a measure which provides for military laws and courts for these troops.
The amendment suggests that the bill be referred to the committee on external affairs. It is quite possible that the committee might obtain explanations which have not been given to the house and which I think should have been given, but I am satisfied, personally, that the committee would report favourably on the bill. Therefore I wish to state, Mr. Speaker, that I shall vote for the bill as it stands. As I see it-and this may appear crude to some hon. members-it is better for Canada to have on Canadian territory, at this lime, United States troops, than Russian troops later.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, in this House of Commons we have sometimes been accused of speaking to the people back home. On this occasion I intend to speak to the House of Commons and to speak plainly to the people back home. I do not want the house to be in any doubt as to where I stand on this particular legislation. Before I touch upon that. I wish to make two observations about the world as it stands. As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) said, in the last eighteen months or two years international relations have considerably worsened; in other words, since the San Francisco- conference. To me it is rather a harsh criticism of our civilization to think that today easily ninety-nine per cent of the people of the world are seeking nothing but peace; yet in the meantime we seem to be heading toward something quite different from- it.
A friend of mine once remarked-I am sure what he said is quite true-that if we could have some law enforceable, which of course we can not. that all future wars should
Visiting Forces

be fought by men over fifty years of age, we would have no more wars. That is a true statement of fact. But it lies with us older people to try to find a solution which will mean that our youngsters will not once more be subjected to what they have been in the last two wars. In these times of modern weapons, we fellows over fifty years of age will be in the picture, but only on the receiving end.
I wish to say a word about this bill. What I intend to say I shall put in a sentence or two. I am 100 per cent opposed to the amendment; I am 100 per cent in favour of the bill, and I shall so vote. There is no equivocation or anything of that sort in what I have said. Realistically our position is this. If we believe anything we read in the newspapers; if we discuss with persons who have gone from here to international organizations, then we can see that they are all worried. There is not any doubt about that.
We can talk as we like of ideals, and I agree with many of the idealistic things that have been said, but to be practical about the matter our position is this. I regard as highly as anyone the interest we have in our sovereignty; but, on the other hand, we are in this position. If a mouse is attacked by a cat it does not *worry much about sovereignty; it hopes that a terrier will come along and kill the cat. That is the position in which we are-let us admit it-with our tremendous boundary line. We are not in a position to defend it. Where are we to get help? In France which was mentioned, in China and in all these other places? I agree with what, so many people have said, that it is unthinkable among rational beings that war should come, but today international affairs are being, conducted, in the judgment of us who are sitting here and other ordinary people in the country, on a basis which we cannot conceive or believe to be rational. Therefore, stripping the tree of its branches and leaves and getting down to the bare trunk, to the basic position, it is this. If, which God forbid, war comes, where are we to look for help except to our friends in the United States of America? Where are we to look for practical help? It is no use theorizing about these things. That is the only place we can get help. May I say this to the right hon. gentleman who is piloting, the bill? I went over and spoke to him a moment ago and asked him about how many of these people were here and he said, about sixty. So far as I am conc'erned I hope they come in their thousands to help our defences to defend the country if we are attacked. We are not going to attack anybody. It is unthinkable. Nobody dreams that

we should; but let us defend ourselves with the weapons we have and with those which we can'get from a friendly people. I hope, sir, that I have left no doubt where I stand on this bill.


Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: This bill is similar to the one which the United States forces had in the United Kingdom during the war and which was passed by the British parliament. Since I had an opportunity to observe the functioning of that bill with regard, to the jurisdiction of United States military courts over there personally, I found, and I think the general opinion was, that the bill worked extraordinarily well. It gave the United States courts and the United States courts martial the right to try their own personnel, and a wise right that was because the United States code of laws is considerably different from that in the United Kingdom. It had one thing which I think we have a little overlooked in this bill, namely, the prejudice that a civilian court has when trying a uniformed national of a friendly country. I would think that the civilian courts in Canada, and I am sure the civilian courts in England, welcomed' the fact that the delicate business of trying offenders against breaches of the law was taken out of their hands. I can see, and it is obvious that anybody who has had experience will know, the difficulty of a court of law passing sentence, against a member of an armed force that is serving as a friendly nation within the borders of his country.
We found that the civilian courts were, in many instances, loath to pass sentence or to try the offenders, in, some cases our own, Canadian soldiers because they were friendly people, and there was the difficulty of a court, particularly a jury, wishing to take action against a member of the visiting armed forces, because it might be construed as an unfriendly act. How fortunate it is that the United States has this clause in their general military set-up, that it is their practice that all these delicate situations are handled by themselves. The Canadian bill does not give the United States authorities power over our courts, which still may try United States service personnel for breaches of Canadian civil or criminal law, if the authorities are not satisfied, with the United States action.
That brings me to another point, namely, that this bill has nothing to do with sovereignty. How the question of sovereignty came in, I do not know; but it has nothing to do with it. This bill merely gives United States forces the right to try their own personnel.

Visiting Forces
I want to point out how this contrasts with the action taken by this government in 1938, when, with the whole European situation just dripping war, the United Kingdom said, "Please let us establish air training camps in Canada." They were turned down. The battle of Britain was won by a hair's breadth. Had it been lost, it would have meant the end of civilization on this planet as we know it. Let us never again be in the position of not being prepared even though we were forewarned. This bill is just an example of a little forewarning.
I do not see the hon. gentleman in his seat, but thank heaven for the realism of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka). He has seen despotism in Europe; he has seen what happened to his own nationals when they came under communist dictatorship.
I now come to the larger question; since much has been said on it, I feel that I must saye something also. I refer to the question of the conflict, real or otherwise, between democracy in North America and communism in Russia. Let us look at the record since the end of the war. Let us go first to San Francisco. What happened there? The one thing that may jeopardize the whole structure of the united nations is the veto power, which was given to any member of the security council. That is the one thing that may emasculate the entire operations of the united nations. Who put it in; who insisted on it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, who?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Russia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the United States.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Russia insisted on it.
Now let us go to Paris,' where they were dealing with the satellite axis nations. What happened? Every day there was procrastina-[DOT] tion and obstruction; battles over the details, until it looked as though the treaties could not be signed in time for the delegates to get to the meeting of the united nations council at Lake Success. Day after day the Russian delegates wmuld get up and ask that a comma be changed, that a sentence be changed, or some other triviality, just to waste time and obstruct the proceedings.
Then let us go to Moscow, where the main peace treaties were dealt with. What happened at that bootless and fruitless conference? There was obstruction from the very start, and no treaties were signed, so that today we have the major democratic belligerents talking of signing separate treaties with Germany and Austria.
Let us go on to the atomic energy commission; what happened there? The United States, Great Britain and other nations on that
commission offered a fair and workable plan. They offered to make their secrets known; they offered mutual inspection of the production of atomic energy all over the world. What happened? The proposal was thrown out of court by the Russian delegate, Gromyko, and an absolutely untenable position taken under which the Rusisans wished the Americans to give up all their science and knowledge in regard to atomic energy and destroy everything they had done, including the possibility that this new force might become one of the greatest benefits mankind has ever known. So we had an untenable position, frustration and obstruction by Russia.
Then let us see what happens every day in the Russian press and over the Russian radio. We get nothing but absolute vilification and abuse of the democracies. Is that the way in which a friendly power is likely to behave? The other day we saw the coup d'etat in Hungary. We see what has happened in Greece, in Albania, in Yugoslavia and in Poland. Everywhere we see Russian communist infiltration and hostile actions toward the democracies; the mining of the straits of Corfu ; getting the little Soviet satellites to commit overt acts; continuous unrest; subversive activity and hostility toward the major powers. Is that the way in which a peaceful nation is likely to act?
Then let us look at the troubles of the forces of occupation in Germany and Austria. Do we get cooperation between the United States, British and French zones and the Russian zone? We do not. Friends of mine on the control commission have told me that it is as much as their life is worth to go over the border of the Russian controlled zones, particularly in Germany. Do we see any effort on the part of Russia to try to rehabilitate Germany or Austria, without which there can be no economic peace in the world? No; we see them taking every bit of productive machinery out of the country. Is that likely to help the rehabilitation of Europe?
Then let us look at what has happened in our own country. Whether or not we like to admit it, today we are at war politically with Russia. Right in this very House of Commons we have seen that, but we forget these things. We have seen prominent, trusted civil servants subverted by Russian agents, right here in Canada. We have seen an attempt by soviet agents to grab the secrets of atomic energy. Was that a friendly act? Was that a friendly gesture between two nations? Then we see communist - controlled, communist - fostered strikes throughout the length and breadth of
Visiting Forces

Canada. I had one in my own riding, and I do not mind mentioning it. That was the Anaconda strike, which lasted for five months, during which every member of the union lost $1,000 in pay. Now it has been shown that the man behind that strike was Reeve Robinson, named as a strong communist in Newsweek. Then what else do we see? Is any member of this house fool enough to believe that communist activity in Canada is not controlled from Moscow?


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I believe I have already given him too much latitude. He should confine his remarks to the general principle of the bill before the house, which is an act to make provision with respect to forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada and with respect to the exercise of discipline and to the internal administration of such forces. The hon. gentleman must understand that on second reading he should confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I admit that I have strayed, but there has been so much straying I felt I could not let the opportunity pass without saying a few words on this important subject. We must face communism in the open and face it now.
However, I come now to the last point and it is this. This is a question of armed forces I have no apology to offer for doing this. Before you have armed conflict, you have political conflict. I have mentioned these things because I would say that political conflict is going on now and that neither we nor the United States are the aggressor, but the aggressor is the Soviet Union. That is why I have mentioned this matter tonight.
Let us see what the C.C.F. amendment would do to this bill. The C.C.F. amendment would kill the bill.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Oh, no.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Let us make that quite plain; the C.C.F. amendment would kill the bill.


Major James William Coldwell: No, it would not.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, it would, because it refers the subject matter of this bill to a committee; and once the subject matter of this bill is referred to a committee, the bill is dead.


Major James William Coldwell: Rubbish.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it did kill it, it would
be for the better.


Major James William Coldwell: But it does not kill it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Second, appeasement has always caused wars. If the hon. members who

have opposed this bill are so blind that they are now prepared to support any appeasement, then I want this house and this country to know it.
The next matter for consideration is this: Has the United States ever attacked anybody? Has Russia? I just leave those questions with the house.
The next matter for consideration is that we are not only geographically in the firing line, but are also the great storehouse and powerhouse of the world. As has been said, we cannot protect ourselves because our population is too small. We must face that. fact. We must have help.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the next war will be a push-button war. We shall not require big battalions. We shall not require divisions and army groups. The next war will be fought with the new weapons. We might just as well admit that now. All this bill seeks to do is to allow our great friend and neighbour, the United States, to help us put our pushbuttons in place, so that if we are attacked we can neutralize the attack before the new weapons take effect on our centres of population. I support this bill with all my heart and I am utterly and1 completely against the amendment.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this bill.


James Arthur Ross: You do not have to.


Angus MacInnis: I do not have to, but I want to say this before the bill is given second reading. I think most of the debate on this bill has been deplorable. This is a very simple bill, whether we agree with the principle or not. It is a bill to allow a foreign country, whose military forces are here by our invitation or consent, to set up their own courts to deal with infractions of the rules or the law. To hear speeches such as that made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) just now, one would think this bill was the first step in a declaration of war. To me it is not understandable that reasonable men should say the things that were said by most of the members who have spoken in this debate.
The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) made what I thought was a reasonable speech. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), in my opinion, made an excellent speech in regard to this bill. I did not hear the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), but I am told that he also made a very good speech, as did the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. JUNE 5, 1947
Privilege
Merritt), and some of the other members. But for most of the debate today one would think this bill the first step in a war. The hon. member for York West did not leave any doubt about it. All of his speech was taken up with the danger of Russia, and he was in favour of this bill because it was the first step in stopping Russia, Surely that is not the way to build peace. Have my hon. friends to my right discarded the idea of the united nations' Are they going to throw away everything we have tried, with so much labour, to build since April, 1945? If they want to do that they had better say so and tell this country to go on an armed footing at once.
It has been said that to refer this bill to the external affairs committee would kill it.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Aluminum Company
made lots of money in Norway during the war.


James Horace King: Order.


Angus MacInnis: The bill, of course, would not be read the second time, but it could be referred to the committee; the committee could report back, and the bill could be reintroduced.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. If I may answer that, the bill as such, as introduced by the minister, would be killed.


Angus MacInnis: All right. Suppose, for
the sake of argument, I take my hon. friend's word for that. If that is the case, then the government put over a pretty slick one on the house the other evening when Bill No. 24 was up for second reading. A minister moved that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the committee on industrial relations. All members, except the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) spoke in favour of it. I asked them if they did that in order to kill the bill. They should have had the courage to say that the purpose of referring it to the committee was to kill the bill and not do it in the underhanded way in which it was done. It is time that we discussed these questions honestly and not in the manner in which we have debated this bill. I say again that I deplore the debate, or most of the debate that has taken place on this bill, because I am satisfied that it is not the kind of debate which will help to bring peace to the world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for
the question.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	No, Mr. Speaker.
I move that the debate be now adjourned. I do not think it would be proper to allow
the vote to be taken without making some observations on the wide range the debate has taken.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 6, 1947