1948-05-03

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the following orders in council. The first, P.C. 1929, transfers the control and supervision of the government telegraph and telephone services, except the telephone exchange service for government offices in and about Ottawa, and the functions of the Minister of Public Works under part I of the Telegraphs Act, to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. The second order in council, P.C. 1930, transfers the control of the government telephone services for government offices in and about Ottawa to the Department of Finance. The orders are under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Aot.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege in reference to the debate that took place in this chamber last Friday evening from eight to nine o'clock respecting the Bell Telephone bill, and the reports appearing in several newspapers. I gave my opinion of the bill; I said I would support the motion to send it to a committee; but the newspaper reports are not correct. At five minutes to nine I understood no vote would be taken; I had an understanding with an hon. member that I would not vote that evening, and I did not think there would be a division. If I had voted, however, I would have voted against second reading, for the reasons I gave at that time.



MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ORGANIZATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT POSITIONS

Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved:: That the organization and establishment of the permanent positions on the staff of the House of Commons, 1948, laid on the table on Thursday, 29th April, 1948, be approved.


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to this resolution before it is adopted. First I want to make clear that I support the resolution and shall vote for it, and that also goes for the other two resolutions which I understand the Secretary of State will move today.
One little word of explanation on my own behalf, which I should like to give at this time, is this. There is in existence all the time what are known as the commissioners of internal economy. There is also in existence at the present time a temporary committee headed by Your Honour having to do with a revision of the rules of the house. Apparently there are some who have confused these two groups.
I am a member of Mr. Speaker's committee on the rules, and within the last few days I have actually been asked whether as a member of that committee I approved the contents of these documents that have been laid on the table. I think it should be made perfectly clear that the group referred to is the internal economy commission, which consists of Your Honour and four ministers of the crown.
With regard to the proposals contained in the document we are now being asked to approve, I am sure we all agree that what is in the document is good. Some of us, however, feel a sense of disappointment at some of the things that have not been included. I refer in particular to the repeated representations which have been made on the floor of the house for some kind of pension plan for sessional employees of the House of Commons. I have pointed up this problem by referring to House of Commons stenographers; but there are other sessional employees who should be similarly covered.
As hon. members know, every time we have raised this question-and it has been raised by all parties in the house-we have run into certain difficulties. When we address our representations to cabinet ministers we are told that this is a matter which comes under the control of the House of Commons itself, and therefore that we must deal with our own officers-in fact that we must make our representations to Your Honour. On the other hand we all know that since this does involve an expenditure of money, to which the government must agree-and that, I understand, is the reason for the internal economy commission-the officers of the house have to tell
House oj Commons-Staff

us that side of the story. The result is that we seem to make headway very slowly.
Last year the question of a pension plan for sessional employees of the house was discussed on the floor of the house a number of times, with the result that we were finally given the assurance that it would be given consideration. After the close of last year's session I wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and placed in his hands a memorandum setting out one way in which this matter could be dealt with. That was not necessarily the only plan, but at least it was a concrete suggestion. The Prime Minister acknowledged receipt of my communication and assured me that consideration would be given the matter.
Several months went by without any announcement 'being made, so I wrote the Prime Minister on December 16 asking what had happened in connection with the matter. On December 23, 1947, he replied to me as follows:
Dear Mr. Knowles:
I have delayed acknowledging your letter of the 16th instant until there was an opportunity to discuss with the Minister of Finance the question of what further consideration has been given, during my absence from Canada, to the representations you made at the close of the last session of parliament with respect to the establishment of some kind of pension plan for House of Commons stenographers.
This is merely one aspect of the general question of the establishment of the House of Commons which is under active consideration at the present time. Mr. Abbott advises me that every effort is being made to see that consideration is sufficiently advanced to permit of decisions being reached and announced soon after the resumption of the session in January next.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
A little while later, on February 14, 1948, having heard nothing further, I wrote again to the Prime Minister. The pertinent paragraph of my letter on that occasion is as follows: You suggested to me in your letter that any plan for pension arrangements for House of Commons stenographers would have to be part of the whole question of establishing of the House of Commons staff. I take it, therefore, that the announcement forecast in your letter would relate to the broader question, but I trust that it will include provision for a pension plan for House of Commons stenographers. May I inquire whether this announcement might be expected at an early date?
The Prime Minister did not reply to that letter in writing. But at his request one of his assistants telephoned me a few days later and told me on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that my assumptions were substantially correct. The information I [Mr. Knowles.!
was given at that time was that two things were in prospect. One was an enlargement of the establishment so far as the House of Commons staff was concerned, and the other was the drafting of some kind of special plan for the sessional employees who are not covered under civil service permanency.
Subsequently-only a few days later; on February 23-1 asked a question of the Minister of Finance when the orders of the day were called. This is my question as recorded at page 1489 of Hansard:
I should like to ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether it is possible to indicate how soon we may expect an announcement about a pension plan for House of Commons stenographers.
To which the Minister of Finance replied: The officials of my department have been looking into the matter and have prepared certain recommendations which will be considered at an early day by the internal economy commission of the house, which has jurisdiction in these matters; and I should hope it would be possible to make an announcement very soon.
I held my peace for a considerable time, in fact until March 24 of this year, when an opportunity to discuss the matter arose in connection with estimates then before the house. Mr. Speaker was before the committee of supply, and I asked him specifically whether these matters were under consideration. His Honour said, as reported at page 2592 of Hansard of that date:
The positions of all employees of the house are being considered at the present time by the internal economy commission of the house.
.And later:
I have every reason to believe that all the employees will be perfectly satisfied.
I took it from what Your Honour said on that occasion, referring as you did to all employees, also from the correspondence I had with the Prime Minister and from the announcement made in the house on February 23 by the Minister of Finance, that we could expect at this time something along the line of a pension plan for sessional employees of the house.
I want to say I am disappointed, and I think hon. members generally will be disappointed, to find that what has been laid before us does not include anything for that purpose as was promised to us.
Since I have brought up the matter I believe I should say one further word. It should be clear that there are ways in which this could be done without putting sessional employees under the civil service. The House of Commons is jealous of the rights it exercises over its own employees; and we wish to retain

House oj Commons-&tafj
..nose rights. The employees themselves want it that way. I would point out however that it would be possible to follow one of two or three different courses. On the one hand a plan could be worked out by which sessional employees could start, from the beginning, to make payments into a pension fund, on the understanding that if they left in less than five years they would get those payments back, and nothing more, and on the further understanding that if they stayed longer than the period of five years they could begin to build up something in the nature of a pension.
Another plan would be to treat sessional employees, such as our stenographers, upon whom we depend so much, in the same manner in which we treat our Hansard reporters. The Hansard reporters are paid an annual salary. They are subject to duty in the House of Commons only during the time the house is sitting. They have permanency on that basis, and they also have freedom during the period when the house is in recess.
I suggest that would be a fairer and a better way to treat our House of Commons stenographers. Instead of paying them so much per day for the length of the session, as we do at the present time, I would like to see them paid an annual salary of, let us say, 81,800 a year. Give them permanency on that basis, and freedom between sessions, the same as wre do in respect of the Hansard reporters and certain other employees of the House of Commons. In this way they would have an opportunity to build up some protection for the years when they should be retiring.
As I have already said, we in the House of Commons are jealous of our rights to maintain jurisdiction over our own employees. We want the stenographers to be available when the house is sitting. We count on the fact that many of them will come back from year to year. I know that there are some who come only for a session or two, after which we do not see them any more, but I am more concerned about those who serve this House of Commons faithfully over a period of years.
It does seem to me that members generally should get behind a move of this kind. In anticipation of this matter coming up this afternoon I read again the debates which took place on March 28, July 7, and July 17, 1947. At that time we were pushed from one side to the other. We were told by the government that this matter was under the control of the house, and we were led to believe by the officers of the house that since it was a money matter, in the last resort we would have
to go to the government. In my view it is a matter for which the government will have to take responsibility. I do not see how Mr. Speaker can be asked to work out and be responsible for a pension plan. Obviously that is a matter for which responsibility should', be taken by the superannuation branch of the Department of Finance.
As I say, I do not like this idea of telling, us that these things are under our control when we know that the final control is in the-hands of those who have control of the money -I hope hon. members generally will support some pension proposal. I do not ask that the particular plans that I have offered be followed; I merely suggested them to indicate that something definite could be done and that we should urge the government to take action along these lines.
There are many phases of this whole question on which one could speak. There are many phases of it in which I am interested, but I shall not go further at this time. My reason for leaving it at that is the hope that by so doing we may make progress in connection with this one particular problem.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken before in this debate but speaking I believe on behalf of the Liberal party and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), whom I happen to have the honour of following, may I say that he is taking the right example in this connection. I understand that in August he is leaving for a younger man.
There are means available that would overcome these difficulties. I am not in the fortunate position that some are, but one who has. been closely associated with me made arrangements to overcome this difficulty in connection with stenographers and secretaries who have served us so well and faithfully. He has provided one with a pension for life. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that more young men be elected to parliament and then the secretaries will be looked after.


Mr. J. T. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only a few words with regard to this report. I agree that basically the report is satisfactory; it is a step in the right direction. But I do not think that enough hon. members of this house are familiar with the proposed establishment to criticize properly the plan which the internal economy commission of the house has submitted.
It is easy for us to pose as champions of the well-being of the employees of the house. I am one of those who perhaps has suffered
House of Commons-Staff

considerably through being around the House of Commons at all times. I have had to share with employees, who feel that they are aggrieved, their feeling of sadness because of their unfortunate position. However, as I look at the rest of the service outside of the House of Commons I must say-I think the employees of the house will agree with me-that conditions for employees in the House of Commons are not bad at all. Indeed 1 think this house gives employment which is remunerative. If the service of an employee is satisfactory he has a feeling of security which he would not have anywhere else.
Something has been said about pensions ' for stenographers. I am in favour of everyone having the benefits of a pension plan. However, I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that he consider employees in the Department of Public Works and other departments who are employed at prevailing rates and who work the year round instead of four or five months and who do not have the benefit of any pension plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Jean-Thomas Richard: That is why I suggested at the beginning of the last session that a committee of this house should carefully study the conditions of work, pension plans, rates of pay and so on, not only of the civil service but of all employees hired by the crown. I agree that this plan is good because it is a step in the right direction.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in one regard. The members of this house should have something to say as to the establishment of positions, as to rates of pay, and as to any pension plan which may be adopted. I suggest again that at the next session a committee similar to the one which I proposed last year should be set up. In the meantime I intend to support the plan proposed by the Secretary of State.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, when this report was tabled on April 29 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) if the veterans preference would apply when appointments were being made to complete the establishment. I should like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) to the fact that there are a number of veterans, both English-speaking and Frenchspeaking, who are employed on the staff during the session. These men may have been employed when war broke out, at which time they went overseas and thus lost their opportunity of being placed on the permanent staff of the House of Commons. I put in a special

plea for those men who served overseas and who have returned to the staff on a sessional basis. They should be given consideration and be permitted to compete for vacancies which are now being created, along with those who did not have an opportunity of serving in the armed forces during the war, who are not veterans but who had an opportunity of being employed on the permanent staff during the war.
I ask the Secretary of State that these veterans who are employed on a sessional basis be given opportunities equal to those given to the employees on the permanent staff.
Mr. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support largely what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, and also the additional remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). I did not hear the proposal made by the minister, but I am sure it is a good one and is in the right direction. I do not know whether the stenographers who have been on the staff for some years are included in the list of those to be made permanent. If so, I am in accord with that.
I know there are a number of stenographers who have been here quite a few years. If they are not on the list, some provision should be made for them. It always struck me as being most unfair that these women who served us so faithfully in taking care of our mail should be turned out at the end of the session. Some consideration should be given to them. Whether they are to be put on a yearly rate or not is a matter for the government to decide, but I rose merely to say that I agree with the suggestions that have been made. I hope that in making the selection all employees will receive fair play, particularly those who have been here ten years or more. In my opinion they should receive more consideration than those who have been here only a year or two. I presume the minister will take that into consideration.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: 
Colin William George Gibson: We have not reached the increases yet. They are provided for in a separate motion.


Mr. McLURE:: The wording here is salary increases and establishment of the house. There is something radically wrong when even the minister does not seem to know what it is about. In view of the fact that none of us know anything at all about it, I think it should be laid aside for a little while until we get some information.
There is another question I should like to ask. How many years of service on the House of Commons staff have some of the stenographers who are now being made permanent? Why are the senior members of the stenographic staff not included in the list? I know of several stenographers who have had more than fifteen years of service on the staff but who are not included. There is discrimination somewhere. I think this matter should be left over until we get some information at least as to who these people are, why they are being appointed and a few other points of information that every member of the house has a right to have.


Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, the report that is before the house at the present time is sketchy. We cannot get away from that fact. It is also true that many of the members have been made aware of certain pay inconsistencies and various kinds of inequalities. It is appropriate that some more detailed investigation should be made of the whole matter of temporary employment by the House of Commons, as well as by the various departments of government throughout the country. While I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) that there should be a committee set
up to look into this matter, my opinion is that it should not be delayed until next year but should be undertaken at the earliest possible opportunity.
It comes to my mind in the discussion of temporary employees that at one time I personally took up in this house with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) certain aspects of it.
I asked him why there should be so many employees in his department who were listed as temporaries, and how long it would be necessary for them to work as temporary civil servants before their appointments were made permanent. As I look at the estimates for 1948, I find a limited change in that regard. It would seem to me that five years on a staff as a temporary employee should be long enough to enable it to be decided whether the employee is or is not suitable to be taken on the permanent staff.
There is also the matter that was mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). We have no assurance in this report, or no comment of any kind, as to what the position is with respect to the veterans preference for those who are on the House of Commons staff. Mention has also been made of the fact that there is no provision for pensions for members of the temporary staff, no matter how long they may be employed. There is also no indication of provision for automatic increases from year to year of service. As I look at this report, it appears to me that those at the top of the scale are fairly well looked after while those at the bottom are ignored.
I want to remind the house, with respect to the remuneration of temporary civil servants-and this is true right across Canada- that in some provinces temporary federal employees are paid salaries or wages which are below- the minimum wage of the province. That condition is backed by force of law, because provincial wage statutes-as for example, those in Saskatchewan-are not enforceable with respect either to employees of the dominion government or to persons who have contracts with the dominion government. A court decision was rendered recently in Saskatchewan to the effect that a temporary Christmas employee of a postmaster was not subject to the minimum wage laws of Saskatchewan, because the federal government was the employer. Those employees were getting less than the $18.50 a week minimum provided for by the statutes of my province. Such matters should be investigated by this committee.
Then with respect to employees of the House of Commons who are working part time only, provision should be made that after a few years they be put on an annual salary;
House oj Commons-Staff

and if it is necessary for them to travel to Ottawa from a distance, travelling allowances should be provided to and from Ottawa.
There is one final bone of contention, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to throw into the laps of the members of the House of Commons. In this building and elsewhere in the public service there are long-service employees who enlisted in His Majesty's forces. By regulation of the civil service commission, they were cut off from superannuation rights at that time, and on their re-employment those superannuation rights were and still are denied to them.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.
Mr. PROBE- I see that Your Honour is rising, and I intend to take my seat. But I say that these questions should be settled now.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I wish to say just a few words, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this motion. The matters referred to in the motion made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) are, I believe, contained in sessional paper 139B. While I am not going to oppose the motion, I think a great deal is left to be desired. Even though I may not have any great amount of information about the operation of the various staffs in the House of Commons, and in that respect am in the same position as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), nevertheless I have the ordinary powers of observation. In one place I notice that the head of a staff of five has a salary increase from S3,420 to $3,900. I do not think that is too much. But I also notice that in the next case, that of the head of a staff of which 150 people are employed, the salary increase is only from $3,600 to $3,900. It seems a little inconsistent that a person who is expected to maintain discipline and keep happy and harmonious relations in a body of people 150 strong or thereabouts is paid at the same rate as one who has far less responsibility.


Colin William George Gibson: On a point of order, may I say that the hon. member is discussing the wrong motion.


James Horace King: I must call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Bentley) to the fact that the motion before the house reads as follows:
That the organization and establishment of the permanent positions on the staff of the House of Commons 1948, laid on the table on Thursday, 29th April, 1948, be approved.
We are not discussing salaries.
[Mr. Probe.1


Thomas John Bentley: Very well, sir; I shall wait until the appropriate motion is moved.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (Saint John-Albert):: May I ask the Secretary of State a few questions before he replies? How many employees of the staff of the House of Commons have received permanent appointments since the war ended? How many employees of the staff of the House of Commons have received permanent appointments since the last report was made, and how many of those employees served overseas during the last war?


Colin William George Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say in answer to the questions of my hon. friend that no employees of the House of Commons can be made permanent except by the house itself. The purpose of the motion before the house is to provide permanent positions for some 102 employees of the House of Commons which up to the present time have been filled by temporary employees. The establishment must be approved by the house itself. When the establishment has been approved the positions will be filled by the civil service commission; and, of course, in reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), I may add that in making these appointments the civil service commission will allow the veterans preference as provided by law.
This motion does not deal with the question of salaries. That matter comes up in a following motion on the recommendation of the civil service commission.
So far as this motion is concerned the establishment was approved by the commissioners of internal economy. It would provide permanent positions to a large number of temporary employees who have been employed for a considerable number of years as temporaries on the staff of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Secretary of State permit a question? Will he make some comment on the matter to which I referred, with respect to a pension plan for sessional employees?


Colin William George Gibson: That has nothing whatever to do with me; it comes under the Minister of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Back where we started.


Mr. LENNARD:: Could we not have a list of the 102 employees who are being made permanent? We are voting to make permanent 102 employees of the House of Commons staff and do not know who they are.


Colin William George Gibson: We are not voting on any employees at all. We are

House of Commons-Staff
voting on the positions as contained in a list which was tabled on April 29.


Arthur Leroy Smith: One copy was tabled, and the 242 of us are expected to read one copy.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will the Secretary of State advise me whether veterans who are on a sessional basis will have equal opportunities with those who are on a yearly basis but still are temporary employees?


Colin William George Gibson: This new establishment provides for the permanent appointment of thirty constables. There are thirty constables on the entire staff, and this provides that nineteen positions now temporary will be on a permanent basis.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: We in this corner of the house have been silent on this matter, for the reason that we find ourselves in the same position as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and others-we do not know anything about it. I think I can say that that goes for almost everything that happens in respect to the staff and management of the House of Commons. I am not an old member of this house, but I am older than some, having been here since 1935, but I do not know the first thing about how the House of Commons in general is managed. I am going to have something more to say on that when the estimates of the House of Commons come before us.
I believe that the internal economy commission as now constituted is all wrong. I do not believe that the responsibilities devolving upon them should devolve upon Your Honour and four cabinet ministers. Each group in the house should have someone on that commission so that we could all become acquainted with what is going on. I do not know whether you know it, Mr. Speaker, but it would be a much healthier thing for you if all members could waylay a lot of rumours that go around concerning appointments for this and that, and a lot of other things that come to our ears about which we cannot do anything. We do not know anything, and we would not want to get involved in it anyway.
With respect to the appointment of, shall I say, the secretarial staff, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the present method of procedure is all wrong. Hon. members find themselves in this position, that their secretaries are appointed by somebody else. I should like to know who has 'the right to appoint anyone to work for me. I am the only one who should do that. The government assumes certain responsibilities that it has no right to assume. The government does not employ us. Extensive revisions are needed in the House of Commons Act, I am sure. The government does not employ us; we members of the House of Commons are not responsible to them. We sit here. They do not want us to sit here. We sit here because our people put us here and we are responsible to them. What happens with respect to the appointment of a member's stenographer? I am in a perfectly good position to discuss this, because I have no grievance with any stenographic help that I have ever had; it has always been satisfactory so far as I am concerned. If I had made the appointment I could not have done any better. But a principle is involved. Some Liberal member recommends a secretary whom I have to take.


Mr. McILRAITH:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: That is right. I have not been here all these years-


James Horace King: May I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that his remarks are not relevant to the motion before the house which has to do with the organization and establishment of the permanent positions on the staff of the House of Commons, 1948, laid on the table on Thursday, April 29, 1948.


Ernest George Hansell: I thought I was within the rules. The motion has to do with the organization and establishment of permanent positions on the staff of the house. The employees have to be here before they become permanent. If they become permanent they are here. We see them all the time; they work with us and we work with them. I do not know why I am not in order. At any rate I have said what I have, and it gives the house some idea of what I will augment at the proper time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Colin William George Gibson: That the report from the civil service commission respecting revisions in classifications of officials of the House of Commons laid on the table on Thursday, 20th April, 1948, be concurred in.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader ot the Opposition):: Before the motion which is now-moved by the Secretary of State is passed. I should like to know whether this is all the
House oj Commons-Staff

information the house is expected to have before making the disposition which is proposed with respect to increases in salaries. Is this all the information we are to have before these increases become effective?


Colin William George Gibson: The list has been tabled. If the house desires more time to go into it I do not mind withdrawing the motion for the time being, but it means that the increases will not go into effect as soon as they would otherwise.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will (he minister let us know who the persons are that are affected-not all of them, but those holding the more senior positions? In other words, there are some, I gather, temporarily occupying permanent positions. Some of us have formed some judgment as to certain persons. and when we are increasing salaries I should like to know to whom we are paying them. As the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansel!) has said, we are asked questions which we cannot answer. Maybe it is our fault, we are so ignorant; nevertheless that is our position. We think therefore it might be of assistance if we could be properly informed so that when someone speaks to us about a certain person we can say: Tfes, I know that chap Smith; he is a very good man and he deserves the increase in pay which he is given. I should like to be able to answer simple questions of that kind.


James Horace King: May I point out to hon. members that on this motion, as on others, hon. members may speak only once. The minister, who is the mover of the motion, is allowed to speak a second time in order to close the debate. I suggest to hon. members that if they wish to speak on the question they put all the questions which they would like to have the minister answer, and he will deal with them in closing the debate. Any other course would not be in accordance with the rules.


John Bracken: I am not one of those who on this matter wishes to speak at all, but I should like to know exactly what we are doing in passing the motion. As I understand it, the motion of the Secretary of State is to this effect. Certain figures indicated in the report which was tabled on Thursday last will become final on approval by the House of Commons, a report applying to some scores, perhaps hundreds of officials. If by this action today that is all that is required to be done in order to make these increases effective, I suggest that we are not being given much information before dealing with

the matter. That is my only complaint. I do not know that it is a complaint, but I do not think the house is being given as much information as it should have before it gives final approval to the proposal.
I think everyone in the house will want to do justice to all the persons affected, and personally I would not expect that there would be much objection to the proposal. But I dislike dealing with the matter in so informal and speedy a fashion, when in matters affecting the estimates we take so much more time.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, I would be expressing the views of all members if I suggested to the minister that the members ought to have a little time to consider in greater detail what this report means. I think better progress would be made than if we proceeded in this way.


Colin William George Gibson: There are 47 classes involved, and in view of what has been said, if hon. members wish to have more time to go over the salary ranges recommended I should be glad to consent to the adjournment of the debate so that it can be brought up later.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Tell us who they are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I believe it requires unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.


Colin William George Gibson: I am
adjourning the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a different story. The Secretary of State said he would withdraw the motion.


Colin William George Gibson: I have
just said I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Before the motion is
put, I should like to ask whether the minister will move the motion again, or rather have the debate resumed, at an early day; because salaries are involved, and if the debate were adjourned without an understanding that it will be resumed quite soon, it would delay the payment of these salaries to persons who need the money.


Colin William George Gibson: If I gave some of the classes that are affected by this motion it might be of assistance, but if hon. members wish to look over the list as a whole I would prefer to have them do so and discuss it later. This motion covers increases in 47 different positions, some of which are: Editor

House of Commons-Staff
of debates and chief of reporting branch; Chief of committees and private bills branch; Chief of English journals; Editor of French debates and chief of French reporting staff; Associate editor of debates and reporter; Assistant chief of English journals. It goes on: Chief of stationery and requisitions branch; Chief of House of Commons stenographic branch; Deputy sergeant-at-arms; Chief of equipment, purchaser and storekeeper; Chief of protective service; Assistant chief parliamentary messenger, and so on. These are all positions in which increases have been recommended by the civil service commission.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: Before the debate is
adjourned I wish to say one word. All through the civil service, requests have been made that increases be granted to civil servants. The commission was charged with the work of making a survey in every department, in every class of civil servant, and they have proceeded in the last four or five months to make investigations and recommendations. The survey has been almost completed for all civil servants. There remains this group of the House of Commons, and the civil service commission now makes a report after carrying out that survey, recommending the increases mentioned in the list which has been tabled. Any delay in adopting this report will mean a delay in giving the increases in salaries to these employees of the House of Commons. I agree with the leader of the C.C.F. party that the debate should not be adjourned for any considerable length of time. In two or three days the house should revert to the motion and try to carry it.


John Bracken: One question. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Public Works that any delay in deciding the matter will postpone the time when the increases will come into effect, may I ask the Secretary of State to say whether the increases are to be retroactive, as I understand they are to be, to a certain date, so that any decision we make now will not affect that date at all?
Mr.	GIBSON	(Hamilton	West):	If	the
house carries it.


John Bracken: The house will want that assurance.
Mr.	GIBSON	(Hamilton	West):	If	the
house carries the motion the salaries will date back to October 1, 1947.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall be in order now-


James Horace King: I should like to know whether it is the minister's intention to proceed with the motion or to move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Adjourn.


Thomas John Bentley: Before the motion for adjournment is put I should like to make 3 suggestion. This matter is pretty confusing to many of us. Is there any method by which it may be dealt with in committee of the whole, where we can ask questions back and forth and get the information we want, instead of in a formal debate of this kind?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 50.


Thomas John Bentley: That is what I suggest.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: May I suggest to the minister that, in asking that the motion stand, he have printed in Votes and Proceedings the reports tabled last Thursday?


Mr. BOUCHER:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, lest my speaking now should bar me later when I have further information, if the minister intends to move the adjour-rnent of the debate will he so state; and will he say also that he will give us copies of these documents, or have them printed in Votes and Proceedings, as has been suggested? At the same time he might indicate when the debate will be resumed, and whether any increases granted by virtue of this reclassification will be retroactive to October 1 of last year, even though there may be a delay of a day or two in actually adopting this recommendation. Then the house will have the facts clearly in mind.


Colin William George Gibson: If hon. members will refer to the report they will see that it reads:
In accordance with sections 12 and 61 of the Civil Service Act, the civil service commission recommends that the following changes in compensation be approved, effective from October 1, 1947.
While there will be some delay in the employees getting their increases if this resolution is not carried today, or at least if it is held up for any considerable time, if the resolution is eventually approved by the house they will receive their increases as from October 1, 1947.
I am quite prepared to have the report printed in Votes and Proceedings and then continue the debate at an early day, as has been suggested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one word on the question 'whether or not we should adjourn this debate. It seems to me that if we have
Questions

more time on it we will not object to any of the increases recommended in this report; we will vote for it as it is. But we would like a further report dealing with employees not covered in this document.


James Horace King: Mr. Mutch moves that
the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. JUTRAS:: 1.	What is being done to prepare histories of the armed forces of Canada in the second world war?
2.	When are the expected publication, dates for such histories?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1 and 2.
(a)	Navy-Three volumes in English and French, as follows:
Volume 1-Events prior to 1939, Volume 2-Policy	and Administration 1939-1945,
Volume 3-Operations.
Volumes 1 and 2 are nearly completed and will probably be published this year.
Volume 3 is under preparation and will be published in 1949.
(b)	Army-	-
(1)	Already published in English and French, three popular booklets as follows:- No. 1-"The Canadian Army at War"; No. 2-"From Pachino to Ortona, the Canadian Campaign in Sicily and Italy, 1943"; No. 3- "Canada's Battle in Normandy".
(2)	A one volume historical summary entitled "The Ca'nadian Army, 1939-1945-An Official Historical Summary" will be published May 5, 1948.
(3)	A three volume history is in course of preparation and will be completed by the end of 1950.
(c)	Air Force-Three volumes as follows:- "The R.C.A.F. Overseas-The First Four Years"-published 1944; "The R.C.A.F. Overseas-The Fifth Year"-published 1945; "The R.C.A.F. Overseas-The Sixth Year" is ready for the printer and is expected to be published this year.
(d)	Combined Services
(1) A two volume medical history covering all armed forces and civilian services is in course of preparation and will be completed by the end of 1951.

(2) A volume on policy covering all three services is in course of preparation and will be completed by the end of 1950.


CANADIAN ARMY-APPLICATIONS FOR SERVICE FROM MEMBERS OF INDIAN ARMY
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Have any members or former members of the Indian army applied to join the Canadian army?
2.	If so, what has been the result and what are the conditions on which such applications are accepted?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	28.
2.	5 accepted-23 rejected.
Of the 5 officers accepted, 3 were former officers of the Canadian army who had transferred to the Indian army during the war and who applied for reappointment to the Canadian army following cessation of hostilities. Of the other 2 officers accepted, one had special professional qualifications for a corps whiph was, and still is, short of officers, and the other had special technical qualifications which were required by another corps which at that time was also short of officers.
The regulations governing application and the standards of acceptance for the Canadian army (active force) are applicable to officers serving or who have served in His Majesty's military forces during the period of the second world war. Officers of the Indian army are accordingly eligible.


DEMOBILIZATION
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has demobilization been completed of (a) all personnel enlisted for the period of hostilities only; (b) all personnel of the interim force?
2.	If so, at what date were these demobilizations completed?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	(a) yes; (b) yes.
2.	30th September, 1947. Former members of the permanent force being retired or discharged to pension, although demobilized on 30th September 1947, were permitted to continue their rehabilitation leave beyond that date. The last officer in this category completed his leave on 16th April, 1948, and the last other rank on 19th March, 1948.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SEARCH AND RESCUE SERVICE
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Does an organization exist within the Department of National Defence to perform the functions of search and rescue?
2.	If so, when was such organization set up?
3.	What facilities has it?
4.	What missions have been undertaken by such organization?

Questions


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Throughout the recent war, the Royal Canadian Air Force operated a search and rescue service, established primarily to render aid to R.C.A.F. aircraft in distress. In order to meet a requirement for an over-all search and rescue organization in Canada, that service was reorganized on the 18th June, 1947.
3.	The following specially equipped air and marine craft are available to the search and rescue organization:
Location-Aircraft
Trenton: 1 Canso, 1 Norseman.
Halifax: 3 Lancasters, 1 Canso, 1 Norseman, 1 Helicopter; marine craft-2 high speed rajpue launches based at Dartmouth, N.S.
Edmonton: 3 Canso, 2 Norsemen, 1 Helicopter.
Fort Nelson: 1 Dakota, 1 Norseman.
Whitehorse, Y.T.: 1 Dakota, 1 Norseman.
Winnipeg: 1 Canso, 1 Norseman.
Vancouver: 1 Lancaster, 1 Canso, 1 Norseman ; marine craft-2 high speed rescue launches based at Patricia Bay, B.C.
The Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and other government departments co-operate when required.
4.	From the date of reorganization, 18th June, 1947 to 31st March, 1948, the following
missions have been undertaken:
Search for missing aircraft	 13
Search for missing marine	craft	
13Evacuation of sick and/or	injured	
16Missions to provide medical assistance ...	2Total	
44


ARMED FORCES-WAR SERVICE GRATUITIES
Mr. CROLL:: 1.	What progress has been made by the board of review under the War Service Grants Act and in reviewing the cases of members of the armed forces who were dishonourably discharged?
2.	What was the total of dishonourable discharges from the three services?
3.	How many of these cases have been reviewed and finalized?
4.	In how many of the cases reviewed has an award of war service gratuity been approved?
5.	How many cases remain to be reviewed?


Mr. GREGG:: Return at midnight, April 29, 1948:
1.	The progress made by the board is indicated by the answers to parts 2 to 5.
2.	8,432 cases that fall within sections 11 and 12 of the War Service Grants Act, 1944, have been reported to the board by the three services.
3.	(a)	5,159 cases have been ordered
entitled to the benefits of the act by this board; (b) 3,035 cases have been refused.
4.	Answered by part 3 (a).
5.	238 cases are under review at present.


ARMED FORCES-MEMBERS OR FORMER MEMBERS SERVING PRISON TERMS
Mr. DION:: 1.	How many members or former members of the armed forces of Canada are still undergoing sentence in civil penitentiaries or jails for offences committed while they were members of the armed forces on active service in Canada or abroad?
2.	For what offences were they convicted?
3.	What provision is there for reviewing and commuting or remitting the sentences?
4.	How- many of the men now in penitentiaries have had their sentences reviewed and how many have had them reduced?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Thirteen.
2.	Conviction by civil authorities, 5; Theft, 3; theft and forgery, 1; immorality, 1. Conviction by service authorities, 8: Aiding enemy, 3; murder,_3; manslaughter, 2.
3.	The Department of National Defence has no authority to intervene with convictions by civil authorities. Reviews of sentences of all members or former members of the armed forces are conducted at least every six months, at which time commutation or remission is considered.
4.	All ex-members of the forces now in penitentiaries, as a result of sentences by courts-martial. have had their sentences reviewed every six months at least. Of the eight at present incarcerated, as a result of sentences by courts-martial, seven have had their sentences reduced.


QUARANTINE CLEARANCE TO VESSELS BY RADIO
Mr. MARIER:: 1.	Has the practice of granting quarantine clearance to vessels by radio been fully restored?
2.	If so, what areas does it cover, how many vessels were cleared in this way and how many boarded?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	All parts of the world except the orient, including territory in Asia and in the adjacent Pacific, east of the Mediterranean, but not including Australia, New Zealand or the Fiji islands.
During the fiscal year 1946^7, 1,355 vessels were granted radio pratique, of which 1,000 were boarded for inspection before granting pratique.
Inquiries oj the Ministry

During the fiscal year 1947-48, 1,561 vessels were granted radio pratique, of which 1,057 were boarded for inspection before granting pratique.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What did the government pay for the Halifax hotel property at Halifax, Nova Scotia, from whom was it purchased and when?
2.	What have been the expenditures for (a) equipment and furnishings; (b) plumbing and heating installation?
3.	What have been the yearly expenditures for upkeep (a) repairs; (b) fuel; (c) janitor services; (d) taxes, etc.?
4.	What have been the total coats?
5.	For what purposes is the property now being used, has it been offered for sale and at what price?
6.	What sums have been realized?


CHEESE EXPORTS AND SUBSIDIES
Mr. KIDD:: 1.	What is the total poundage of Canadian cheese exported to Great Britain each year, from 1920 to 1947?
2.	What is the total amount of subsidy paid on cheese during each of the respective years?
3.	What is the total poundage of butter exported to Great Britain each year from 1920 to 1947?
4.	What is the total amount of subsidy paid on butter during each of the respective years?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Frank Exton Lennard: For a copy of all contracts and detailed receipts for moneys paid out in connection with the national housing conversion at 72 Victoria avenue, South Hamilton.


Frank Exton Lennard: I have received the information I require at the moment. If it is understood that any further information required will be forthcoming, I am prepared to drop the motion.


James Horace King: Dropped.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs); I should like to take this opportunity to answer a question

asked on'April 29 last by the lion, member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), as reported at page 3436 of Hansard. The question was:
Is the minister aware that the disastrous flood in Manitoba, particularly in the southern portion, has been caused to a very large degree, by foreign waters flowing north into the province. and that this disaster is a recurrent affair? Will the minister ascertain and tell the house whether the terms of reference which were issued to the international joint commission in January of this year, to investigate and report on the drainage basin of the Red river are broad enough to allow the commission to make a complete recommendation with a view to preventing the .recurrence of such floods?
Our information is that the present flood- or perhaps I may call it the recent flood-did come principally from international waterways whfth flow from the state of North Dakota into the province of Manitoba. While to some extent it is a recurrent flood, it had caused no disaster of this magnitude since 1916.
The reference to the international joint commission dated January 12, 1948, covering waters from the eastern boundary of the Milk river drainage basin up to and including the drainage basin of the Red river, does allow the commission to make recommendations with a view to preventing the recurrence of such floods.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister about which I have not spoken to him because it arises in connection with the debate which took place this afternoon. Certain reports were tabled on Thursday last. We come to the house today and the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) moves that the house approve those reports. The house had no intimation that he was going to move that motion.


Colin William George Gibson: Oh, yes; it was in Votes and Proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But not on the order paper and not announced Friday night.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Read Votes and Proceedings.


John Bracken: My only point is that if we know these things are going to be brought up we can be ready to deal with them. I looked at the order paper. It was not there. If we have to look at Votes and Proceedings as well, that is something else again. I think the house should know when these matters are to

Inquiries oj the Ministry
come up. I accept the statement of the minister that we should' have known, but I have always gone by the order paper, and it contained nothing to indicate that these matters would be brought up.



RESTORATION TO ORDER PAPER OP QUESTION AS TO HOUSING CONVERSIONS IN HAMILTON DISTRICT

Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, on April 29 I suggested that a question standing in my name had not been fully answered on April 28, and requested that it be restored to the order paper. That has not been done. I should like to know if there is any good reason why it should not be done and, if not, when it will be placed on the order paper again, to be completely answered.


George James McIlraith: On Thursday last when the hon. member for Wentworth raised the point I was not able to hear clearly what he said. This morning I had an opportunity to look at his remarks in Hansard, and I now understand their purport. Upon reading the question it would appear that there may be some deficiency in the answer. If there is, I certainly shall be most agreeable to having the question go back on the order paper and any supplementary information that may be available brought forward as soon as I have an opportunity to look into the matter. I may say there is an order for return related to the same subject matter, and the same remarks made with reference to the question, in answering it, would apply to the order for return. If further or more complete information can be obtained in any way it will be brought forward by way of supplementary return.



REQUEST THAT PROCEEDINGS IN RAILWAY COMMITTEE ON BILL 8 BE REPORTED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. My question has reference to Bill No. 8, the Bell Telephone bill, which has been referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I do not see the chairman of the committee in the chamber. I think in the public interest the proceedings of that committee should be reported as even divorce, cases are. It would keep the record straight and save the time of the house later on.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think that that is a
matter for the minister to decide. It is for the chairman of the. committee together with the members of the committee to decide whether the evidence should be published. I do not think there would be any objection.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the pending visit at the end of this week of the United States Secretary of Defence, will the minister say whether the chiefs of staff of the Canadian forces will have returned to Canada by that time?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, arrangements for the chief of the general staff and chief of the air staff to visit and exchange views with high ranking officers of the United Kingdom and various countries of Europe were completed before the visit of the Hon. James Forrestal was arranged. It is impossible to arrange for their return for the visit. Of course opportunities are always available for discussions between our chiefs of staff and high ranking officers of the United States.


Mr. ADAMSON:: May I ask a supplementary question? Does that mean that the three chiefs of staff will not be here for what appears to be an extremely important conference? If so, it is surprising.


Brooke Claxton: I referred to two chiefs of staff. As I said, there are ample opportunities for them to consult with high ranking officers in the United States.



ACCIDENT AT VERNON, B.C., RANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the press report indicating that three young boys were killed and one seriously injured a few days ago at Vernon, British Columbia, through the explosion of two-inch mortar bombs on the range, will the minister inform the house what steps his department has taken or may take in the future to remove dangerous explosives from such places?
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Brooke Claxton: An inquiry has already been held into that accident, and the report is being forwarded to me here. My information is that this was an old range which had been gone over to recover explosives, and that the boys in question, who were not there on business, had dug down and ran across some unrecovered munitions. A full investigation has been made, and as soon as the report is received I shall tell the hon. member.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
ACCIDENT CAUSED BT SLIDES NORTH OF KAMLOOPS On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Press reports disclose another wreck on the Canadian National Railways main line forty miles north of Kamloops, which cost the lives of two of the train crew. In view of this recurrence of fatal accidents caused by slides, will the minister assure the house and country that the lives and safety of the crews and the efficiency of the railway's operation will be protected by the installation of safety devices, including slide detector fences, at a much earlier date than that at present contemplated?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry to learn of the
accident to which my hon. friend refers. I had not been aware of it.
If my memory is correct, there are two methods of dealing with land slides, one of which is to instal the block signals and the other to instal slide detector fences. I am informed that the Canadian National Railways propose to include the sum of a million dollars to instal a block system. I am not sure whether that is to be in the area where the accident referred to occurred, but it is certainly in the area in which these slides have taken place heretofore. It is also intended to instal slide detector fences, and they are proceeding toward that end immediately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a
supplementary question. The purpose of my question this afternoon was to ask that the minister instruct-if I may use that word- the officials to proceed with the installation at an earlier date than that contemplated at present? The indications are that they will not be ready by next winter. I suggest that they be proceeded with at greater speed than is at present contemplated.


Lionel Chevrier: I am aware that, following the disaster to which my hon. friend refers, a report was sought. What the report contains 
I cannot say. I am informed however that following previous disasters which have taken place the Canadian National Railways came to the decision I mentioned a moment ago. It is the intention to proceed without delay.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply relating to veterans housing in Vancouver. Has the old Hotel Vancouver been discontinued as a hostel for ex-service personnel and their families? If the hostel has been closed, has other accommodation been found for the tenants, or were the tenants forced to vacate before they had found other accommodation?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: As my hon. friend is aware, the old Hotel Vancouver has been under lease to the Vancouver rehabilitation council for the past two or three years. The rehabilitation council has operated the hotel as a hostel, and the government has given some financial assistance by way of meeting deficits. Last winter the council advised the government they did not wish to carry on the operation for a further time, and asked to be relieved of that responsibility. Early this year the property was sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway to another owner, and it was intimated then that the lease would not be renewed. The lease would normally expire on May 1 last. It was found, however, that proper arrangements for closing the hostel could not be completed on May 1, and a temporary lease for three months has been granted, to continue until July 1. The intake of tenants at the hostel was stopped on March 1 and the numbers in the hostel are shrinking. Eighty-five per cent of the married couples now in the hotel have indicated that they wish to take the alternative housing offered them by the government.
Married families with children have been given the first opportunity to take one of the six hundred houses now under construction by Wartime Housing in Vancouver. So far as single tenants are concerned, it will be necessary for them to find their own accommodation. That is also necessary for married couples without children. The numbers of tenants are normally shrinking down to a point where the residual problem on July 1 will not be serious, and I think no hardship will result.

Inquiries oj the Ministry



EXPORT PERMITS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). As he is not in his seat perhaps one of the parliamentary assistants would reply. In view of the fact that the government is sponsoring an international trade fair in Toronto this month, will the minister state what steps have been taken to relax regulations regarding export permits so that Canadian exporters may realize the fullest benefit from the exhibition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, as the trade fair is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and as that department also operates the export permit regulations, perhaps I might answer the question. As announced, an international trade fair is being held in Toronto, and promises to be a success far beyond the expectations of the department when the plans were first made. So far as the relaxation of export regulations is concerned, export permits are granted freely for any Canadian product which is no>t essential to the domestic economy and is not required to fill long-term contracts. That will continue to be the practice. I am sure no hon. member would wish us to grant export permits under an}' other conditions.



WAR ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Are all the buildings at Maple Hills, the former airport at Charlottetown, to be declared surplus by the War Assets Corporation? If so, when and how will they be disposed of?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I received no notice of my hon. friend's question, but I would point out that the buildings would be declared surplus not by War Assets Corporation, but by another department to War Assets Corporation. I shall be glad to see if there is any information available in the department and answer the question later.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Mines and Resources a question based upon a telegram which I received this morning from Vancouver island. Have the crews of the department's hydrographic survey ships, the William J. Stewart and Perry, been asked to sign contracts based on last year's wages, and have they refused to do so, thus causing a tie-up of the vessels?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources):: I have instituted inquiries and hope to give the hon. member an answer tomorrow morning.



TARIFFS AND TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the Canadian government has recently made any representations to the government of the United States asking for a new trade treaty to reduce the tariffs between the two nations, this apart from the Geneva or the Havana agreements? If so, has the American government made any response?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That question should be directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance made a statement on the subject a short time ago and any further information would come from him.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I will refer the question to him tomorrow. Will the minister ask the Minister of Finance about it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Refer it to the Liberal convention in August.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, as we near the third anniversary of V-E day this debate on Canada's position with regard to external affairs becomes most valuable, perhaps more valuable than is realized at the present time. At the close of hostilities it was the hope of the world that
Supply-External Affairs

some intergovernmental organization might be brought into being which, by its collective action, would preserve the peace of the world. We, and I think all citizens of all democratic states, still clung to that hope, despite the failures of The Hague court and the league of nations.
Today with virtually a full scale war going on in Palestine we read headlines in the daily press like this: "Helpless united nations sees war in holy land". The situation, however, is not one where we should throw up our hands and abandon the united nations. The united nations today are possibly at a lower point in world opinion than at any time in their history. They are probably going through a lower ebb of public confidence than the league of nations ever went through until after the abrogation of the Locarno pact.
Despite the jibes, despite the failure, despite the veto clause, despite the everlasting talk, despite the obstructionism that has gone on in the united nations, the only hope for the security of Canada lies in some organization which will bring about collective security. That fact has been brought out through the passage of time. During the French revolution Talleyrand was quoted as saying: "In foreign affairs the best policy is to have no policy''. That supremely cynical statement would apply to what has virtually been the policy of Canada in external affairs until the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke the other day.
I propose to speak a little later on the subject of our trade relations with regard to external affairs, but I want to say now that we have entered into a new era in international affairs. It is obvious by what has happened to that part of the world under the domination of the Soviet empire. It is obvious that steps will have to be taken by the rest of the world to combat this definitely expansionist ideology if we wish to remain free.
One of the steps that are being taken is apparently the abandonment by the United States of the policy of no military alliances which has been in effect from the time of Washington up to the present day. It appears now as though there will be some sort of Atlantic union, or call it by whatever name you like, made up of the countries bordering the Atlantic ocean, whether they be on the European side down to Africa or on the American side from North America down to the outermost parts of South America. In that union the United States will play a dominant part and we, as her next-door neighbour, must be prepared for this new alignment in world affairs.

A military alliance which, as far as I can see, is inevitable under the present circumstances is something which the idealists in the first decade of the twentieth century and in the years after the first world war thought was an anachronism, an archaic revulsion, a return to the wars of the middle ages. I think we and the world have found that we have been driven by force of circumstances into some sort of military alliance with our friends. I see no other possibility at the present time than that this changed fact must be eventually realized.
I said that I proposed to talk about external affairs, particularly as they relate to foreign trade; because this, after all, is the point on which external affairs, relations between countries, first begin to disintegrate. The first troubles between nations are nearly always economic troubles. They lead to further friction and eventually to political action which, as has been said, is the mere forerunner of war. I shall therefore try to deal with the trade situation as it is developing under the present international relationship of the dollar economy and what, for want of another name, I shall call the barter economy.
After the first world war a European banker said to me that the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian empire meant the end of European economy. He pointed out that the Danubian block formed a great central core of free trade upon which the economy of Europe depended. What he said has been proved to be true, because ever since the treaty of Versailles Europe has not known economic stability. Churchill, in almost the second paragraph of his "Memoirs", mentioned this. After this war there is a strong desire expressed in many parts of the world to break up the British empire, and in fact disintegration has been going on at an alarming rate. The British empire and the Austro-Hungarian empire had many points in common. They were both composed of many different races,- speaking many different, languages; and, as the Germanspeaking people in the Austro-Hungarian empire composed a minority, so do the Englishspeaking people in the British empire.
There is, however, one significant point which we must consider at the present time. The British empire has, despite the individual fiscal autonomy of the various component countries, formed a great worldwide core of trading nations. These individual self-governing nations have had their own tariff policies; but owing to the system of preferences they formed a world system of trade which, if it was not free, at least was infinitely freer than the trade of the rest of the world. If we

Supply-External Affairs
allow this group of nations to disintegrate, I fear that the same thing which happened to Europe after world war I will inevitably happen to the world after world war II. The parallel is significant. I mention this in the debate on external affairs, not for any reason of patriotism, but merely as a warning to show how dangerous this lust for ethnic selfdetermination can be to world trade.
During the period of the nineteenth century, which has been known as the period of the Pax Britannica, the 'beneficent influence cast by the reign of the pound sterling depended, in the final analysis, on British hegemony and an overwhelming preponderance of power ensuring some degree of peace; at least, it ensured, that wars would be localized. If, for want of other words, what I shall call the dollar standard is to play a similar role, it will be through the exercise of overwhelming American power on the side of justice. To some idealists this may be an unpalatable fact, but it is as inevitable as night and day, and we must be prepared to recognize it.
This brings me to a critical examination of the Marshall plan. Enormous publicity has been given to this throughout the world, and serious doubts have been expressed as to whether the United States was capable of providing so great a sum and so vast a quantity of material. Some critical examination of this point should be made. In any matter such as this, the salient point is the comparison between the expenditures and that of the total national income of the nation as a whole. This is called the gross national product. In 1948, which is the major year of the Marshall plan, the gross national product of the United States is estimated to be $230 billion and the total gross value of the United States gifts and loans is estimated at S9-7 billion, or 4-2 per cent of the gross national product. As a comparison, in 1919 United States gifts and loans, while only one-third as much as they are today, formed a greater percentage, namely, 4-5 per cent of the gross national product of the United States in that year.
These figures, which are the official United States government figures found through the Harriman and Herter committees, must for evaluation be compared with United States exports under normal trading. In the same year, 1948, United States exports of goods and services come to the sum of $19 billion, or 8-3 per cent of the gross national product. The significant feature is that the 1925 to 1929 average of United States exports of goods and services was $6-6 billion, or 7-1 per cent of the then gross national product. It is seen from this that even in 1948, the year of maximum
assistance under Marshall aid, actual United States exports of goods and services form nearly double the percentage of the gross national product. That is provided under the Marshall plan. The extremely significant point is that, even under the most unfavourable conditions, business between corporations and individuals is double that of business between governments.
The Canadian situation is even more intensified, because we are approximately three times as dependent upon foreign trade as is the United States. As a matter of fact our dependence is even greater than this, because, while our percentage trading position is three times as great as the United States, the loss of a third of our total trade would be infinitely more than three times as serious as the loss of ten per cent of the United States total.
This brings me to my next point with regard to trade, and world trade is the essential backbone of foreign relations. Our position in Canada is extremely hazardous because we are placed between the dollar economy of the United States and the barter economy of the rest of the world. Our shortage of United States dollars and the resultant austerity program, instigated by the present administration, is entirely due to our international position. I may say here that, while the austerity program has had some effect, neither it nor any similar program, no matter how drastic, can possibly solve the problem, because it does not tackle the situation at the root.
The drain on United States funds and continuing disequilibration of our over-all trade position are continuing and will continue, despite all the efforts the government may take along the lines of austerity and quantitative restrictions to trade. We are virtually sowing all the evils of state trading, and we have apparently learnt nothing from the past and are following the errors of the United States administration quite blindly.
I want to quote one paragraph of an article which appears in this week's Newsweek, and which I think is apt on this point. The article was written by Henry Hazlitt, who is a well known commentator and economic expert. It reads as follows:
It is disheartening that the President has learned nothing not only from our post-war experience in price fixing, but from the appalling consequences of existing price control in Europe. The most important thing America can do today is to continue to demonstrate to the world the enormous production possible through free prices and free enterprise. We must not cripple ourselves by imitating the very controls that have forced Europe to turn to us for help.
Supply-External Affairs

That is very similar to our position in Canada.
I want to mention briefly what is happening in Europe. The international trade organization which met in Geneva, was succeeded by the Havana conference, to be followed eventually by a further conference in Buenos Aires, drew up a charter for the rules on international trade. In order to make the I.T.O. and the Geneva and Havana trade pacts work, the barriers imposed by the complex mesh and network of bilateral trade pacts made by European nations must be overcome. The total possible number of such pacts, which are the very antithesis of the I.T.O. charter, by every combination and permutation between the nations of Europe is 231.
Since the war, no fewer than 113 such pacts have been made. Many of them involve countries with trade monopolies vested in government agencies, and many carried trade through the iron curtain. By this, Mr. Speaker, the European economy has virtually become a barter economy of bilateral pacts. These pacts are in fact an extended form of barter, but their very existence is a danger to Canada because they set up a pattern of trade which excludes any participation by Canada. Western Europe is working out a financial pool, a sort of international checking account to increase trade bilaterally amongst its members. The plan is conceived by the British who are the masters still of the methods of international banking.
What does this mean for Canada? It means that in Europe today there is a vast network of trading agreements between countries trading chiefly in commodities, trading between themselves bilaterally, at variance with all the pious hopes of the I.T.O., but also -and this is the important part-trading to the almost total exclusion of Canada, because the pacts are bilateral.
As I have pointed out, our per capita trade and our world trade done on a free basis constitute an imperative part of our economy; but, as we are suffering from lack of dollars, brought, about by our own stupidity, restricting our freedom of action, and as the rest of the world is rapidly forming bilateral barter agreements, despite the pious hopes of the I.T.O. and the Geneva and Havana conferences, our position is becoming rapidly more and more intolerable and our freedom of action is being taken from us.
It is at this point that I want to suggest one measure which, in my opinion, will restore our equilibrium of balance of payments in foreign

trade. That one move is the re-establishment of free markets, particularly a free currency market.
We have to restrict our purchases in the United States and more and pnore, through the clauses of the I.T.O., as well as through the artificial price structure set up by currency pegging in Europe, we find ourselves unable to buy from Europe, particularly from Great Britain, owing to the high cost of their goods. Incidentally, very recently the United Kingdom told our textile importers that it could not supply Canadian needs for textiles this year. It fell short for many reasons and by many millions of yards. This cost means little in a bilateral agreement which is really a form of barter. If you are exchanging one article for another it does not much matter how much you say your article is worth if you are not to be paid in cash. I should like to quote in this connection one paragraph from a recent article by Jacques Rueff, who was president of the inter-allied reparations agency in Brussels. This is the paragraph:
The disturbing effect of price control is nowhere more clearly shown than in the sphere of international exchange. The immobilization of the rates of exchange at a level below that which would be assured by the balance of the market dicourages export and often entirely closes foreign markets. For example, it is certain that so long as prices and rates of exchange remain fixed, countries which do not produce gasoline will not enjoy freedom of motor traffic. On the other hand, it provides maximum stimulus to the desire to purchase abroad. It therefore inevitably creates a hunger for foreign currency. Further, the position will continue to deteriorate so long as exchange rates are thus artificially determined. The deficit has a continual tendency to increase those prices which are free as well as black market prices, with the result that production is more and more diverted toward the free or black markets, thereby increasing scarcity on the official markets.
Our currency situation has shown a tendency to stabilize itself at approximately a ten per cent discount in terms of the New York exchange. This is encouraging, but there are discouraging sides to the picture. The investment of United States capital in Canada has greatly decreased in the last two years, and actually there has been a tendency, despite all restrictions imposed, for Canadian capital to leave Canada to seek investment in the United States. This is most dangerous. No one in his senses will invest capital in a country with a pegged or frozen currency. We see at the present time more and more pressure being built up against pegged currency. Mr. Aldridge of the Chase National bank, a close adviser of the United States

Supply-External Affairs
government, has stated that more realistic exchange rates must be brought about before the Marshall plan can be really effective. Mr. Harriman of the Union Pacific Railway Company, another close adviser, has said the same thing, and Mr. Hoffman, who I understand was president of Studebaker corporation and who is now in charge of ERP, which is administered by what is called the economic co-ordination administration, the ECA, has echoed these remarks.
There has been a persistent rumour that European currency revaluation was to be undertaken, starting with the Benelux union. Whether this is true or not, revaluation is inevitable. When this occurs our trading position will become more and more difficult. Mr. Speaker, before this happens, I believe that Canada should act.
What I am about to suggest may seem unorthodox to the present planners of our economy, but I believe it is the inevitable solution. I suggest two things. The first is that we free our currency from all controls whatsoever. This may seem a revolutionary suggestion, and there will be those who will say that by doing so we expose our economy to speculators in world currencies, and there are those who will say that our Canadian dollar would immediately sell at an enormous discount. Both these fears are, in my opinion. unfounded. In the first instance I believe it unfounded because the dollar has tended to stabilize itself at a discount of ten per cent on the free market in New York. There are those who say that this is a small market and that is not a true indicator of what would happen if we abandoned controls. I am informed that this is not so, and in fact the transactions on the free market in Canadian dollars in New York run to over 8100 million a 3'ear.
To say that a free market in Canadian currency would expose our currency to wide fluctuation by speculators is not, in my opinion, a possibility. We have one of the strongest international banking systems in the world, the personnel well versed in the business of foreign exchange. Furthermore, while our currency expansion has been considerable, it has certainly not been out of line with our productive capacity and our industrial potential. Thanks to the ability of our banking system, we have not inflated our currency. The soundness of the Canadian dollar is, in my opinion, appreciated throughout the world.
A third point is that we in Canada are producers of goods which the world must have. I refer particularly to the base metal group of
copper, lead, zinc and aluminum. We are also the foremost producer of wood products, particularly of paper. Add this to our agricultural products and we have a virtually impregnable position in world trade under a free market.
One other move which goes hand in hand with this free exchange is the establishment of a free market for gold bullion. This would mean that the Canadian dollar would be not only free but would be transferable into gold at the option of the holder at the day's buying rate for bullion, which would be determined by the law of supply and demand. With an option such as this, the Canadian dollar would then become the prime currency of the world, irrespective of the discount it would sell at in terms of United States currency. With the convertible factor, European nationals would do everything possible to sell in Canada; and I again emphasize the fact that private trading, despite all state controls, is still running several times that of state trading. Even individuals of countries behind the iron curtain are engaging in foreign trade.
To induce European nations to sell to us is the only way in which we can be paid for the goods we sell to them. So long as we engage in restrictive measures against traders, and restrictions in foreign exchange, we shall continually aggravate our dollar situation and at the same time make it more and more difficult for non-dollar countries to sell to us. With this in view and with our absolute dependence upon world trade, we face either freedom or bondage. It is my opinion that the move to free our currency should be taken at once. On this question depends our whole future as a free nation and to me it is the most important question in our entire external affairs position.
Stable exchanges are meaningful and useful only if foreign trade and investment are tolerably free. It is idle to say that, the pound is worth $4 if no one can use it. If nations continue to plan their internal economies they must plan their exports and imports. Free trade means much more than tariff reduction; it means a free internal market.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the position in which we find ourselves today. Our position with regard to the United States is well known. It has been discussed for many months in this house. Our position with regard to the rest of the world is just becoming apparent. One-half of the world is trading by barter; the other half is trading by hard currency. In Canada, fixed between those two types of trading, we shall find ourselves squeezed
Supply-External Affairs

almost to the extent of international insolvency because our trade will be so restricted. If we, by the method I have suggested and all the other methods, can possibly aid the freedom of trade, then our future and the hope of a continuing healthy economy on a rising scale will not be diminished.


Mr. MAURICE HARTT (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a pleasure to be able to participate in this foreign affairs debate, and I sincerely hope that I shall be able to' make my modest contribution to this debate on the relationship that Canada must bear and carry with other nations in order that it may exist, in order that it may survive, and in order that it may prosper. And we must not forget the necessity of maintaining peace in a civilized world. I hope Canada will pay a debt beyond a debt, in that it will help to suggest, promote and build international relations to a point where at all times we may be able to avoid war, the greatest scourge that can befall humanity when it reaches that point.
I want to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the lucid, definite and categorical expose he has given this house on the question of international affairs. I regret, however, that one of the principles the minister has accepted is that for regional defence we must work with and depend upon the United States, while on our large-scale policy we must also stand with Britain in determining our world position. I can understand the utility of this statement; I can understand its purpose; but if a nation cannot determine its own foreign policy, if of necessity it must fall between the conflicting interests of other nations, then it does not have the right of self-determination that it should have. Historically, actually and factually the right hon. gentleman could not help but accept the status quo with which we are confronted. By some twist of international mysticism, some ethereal conception of international life, the world has seen fit to divide itself into big fives, big fours, big threes and big twos, while nations which have contributed proportionately as much per capita, if not more, are ranked as secondary powers. Then perhaps there are also third-rate powers. In my opinion it was a grave international error to permit five powers, because of their size, to predetermine the life and future of the whole world.
I am a great supporter of the united nations, but I must say the veto was one of those traps none of the nations should have permitted to exist, even if there had been no abuse on the
[Mr. Adamson.)
part of Russia. No nation has ownership of another nation. No nation should be able to tell Canada whether or not she can decide, discuss or express an opinion on a certain matter, whether that is done by Mr. Vishinsky or Mr. Gromyko. No nation should pretend to have the right to say it will veto a certain question. It would be as though a criminal, brought before a court of justice, should tell the court, "I refuse to be tried, and I veto the question." That happened in Iran, in connection with Iranian oil. Russia invades a country, takes possession of territory which is not hers, exploits the people by a fake revolution; and when the question is brought before the united nations it is discussed always under the threat of the veto. Things like this make international fair play impossible.
I must also compliment the government on having established for Canada a muUt-partisan committee on international affairs. It is the logical thing to do. This parliament represents all of Canada. We have a common interest; that is, the preservation and wellbeing of Canada. It matters not on which side of the house we sit; our common interest is Canada. In arranging that all parties in this house be represented on that committee, directly or indirectly, the government has taken a unifying step; and I hope that in and for the future this shall remain a tradition with every Canadian parliament, that foreign policy at least shall be more than bi-partisan and shall be multi-partisan if there are more than two groups in the house. In this house we can act with unity of purpose, with strength and courage for the preservation of this country.
I wanted to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), and I might add that I was quite inspired by his address. In his suggestions as to how to deal with foreign matters I found something rarely heard, that human value and those vita! principles common to all humanity, I found him logical, contrary to what someone else may say. I found his remarks pertinent; and when he said that he and his party had always urged that of necessity we must look to the winning of the peace, I was profoundly touched. It is true that the C.C.F. do not have a patent on that feeling, that they were not the only party to make the statement. It is true that it was common talk in the newspapers and on the streets, but the hon. member brought it to the floor of parliament; and I hope it registers with the policymakers as a basis for what shall constitute international obligations and international law.
Unfortunately-and I say this with all deference and respect because I know it is much easier to criticize than to put something into

Supply-External Affairs
effect-in my humble opinion no nation in the world had an international policy. It was a question of makeshift and mischief; "what can 1 get for my own country first, without any consideration of international justice?" For lilts reason we are in such a terrible dilemma today. The world is more confused than before the war with the nazis. The people do not know whence or whither, whether we are aoing or coming. They do not know what is the policy of one nation or the policy of another. The question is terribly complex. I agree with the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) that trade is one of the factors for international peace and also for war. It has been said that trade is the search for markets and that w-ar is the obtaining of those markets. But that alone is not the primary factor, and I do not think the hon. member made that claim.
There is a multiple, a complex system of international relationships as regards which, if v-e lose sight of one, we lose sight of all of them. It is for this reason that it is most difficult to establish an equitable system of international relations.
I have not seen nations stick together for ideological reasons. I have not seen nations stick together because they had prosperous trade. I have seen them break asunder on little points. For instance, at the time of the first world war Germany and England had a common interest in world trade. "Made in Germany", was beginning to get into the hair of Britain. When 1914 came something had to be done to lessen that trade. So that in this instance common interest is not a preservative of peace. Ideological or religious bases cannot alone keep it, either. The one and common ground must be the vital principle of the right of every -nation to exist. That must be the primary humanitarian reason. And if that is accepted, no nation can go wrong.
We feel now as we have never perhaps felt in the past, and we shall feel it keenly in the future. I do not say this because I want to praise anyone or for reasons of patriotism, but because I am thinking in terms of objective reality, when I say that at the turn of the twentieth century a void or vacuum was created in the world Britain ceased to be what she was in connection with foreign relations. Never since the days of Henry VIII to the turn of the twentieth century had Britain been so weak in respect of her foreign relations policy. Whether that was by providence, or whether it was because everything that grows does so with the germ of decay, or whether it was by improvidence, or whether
it was from lack of knowledge or indifference, the fact is that it was a policy of ponder and blunder.
It was not a policy which could be considered distinctly British. Something happened in the foreign office or the British government which brought Britain to the position where she created a void, a vacuum, which the world has not the ability to fill. Let us look for a moment at the six or eight years before the second world war, and see the blunders made by that nation which was supposed to be best acquainted with international affairs, and which knew the weaknesses and strength of other nations, and it will be seen how Britain brought herself into that position of impotency.
First of all, in 1933 or 1934 they allowed the German government to gain supremacy in the air. Hitler could not have hoped to organize his army, his navy or any military unit in five years. Mr. Baldwin declared in the British House of Commons in 1935: "We shall have not only parity with Germany in the air, but supremacy by fifty per cent". Subsequently he rectified this statement bysaying, "If I had said in a certain b.v-eleetion that rearmament is the policy of Great Britain we would have been defeated". Imagine 1 The British Prime Minister, t-he symbol of honour and dignity itself, which served as an example of character and strength, placing his country in danger for a political advantage. To make such an admission in the British House of Commons was beyond human understanding.
But by 1935 Hitler had already acquired supremacy in the air. We will remember when Sir John Simon was Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he went along with Mr. Anthony Eden-like two underdeveloped maidens, meaning well but doing little-to visit with Mr. Hitler and Mr. Mussolini but without any success, so far as peace was concerned. They learned then that Hitler had air parity with Britain.
Then we come to the Spanish incident. Never in the history of Britain, as I know it, was the union jack so humiliated. And when Mr. Chamberlain got up in the British house and said, "I told the merchant marine not to go to Spain; and if they are bombarded and sunk it serves them right"; and when we have the British Prime Minister telling the House of Commons at Westminster, "We do not allow the British flag to fly in all parts of Spanish waters"-because it suited a certain purpose-we have another unmistakable and dangerous precedent which brought Britain to an inferior position in which she finds herself today.
Supply-External Affairs

Then there was the question of the Austrian invasion, which was reported ahead of time to Mr. Chamberlain; and it was told to him and repeatedly told to him. That very night he was having supper with von Ribbentrop. who knew Austria was to be invaded, and carried on an inane conversation with Mr. Chamberlain in order to prevent him from getting to the telephone to learn the real facts. England was faced with a flit accompli which left her helpless and with loss of prestige.
Then came the betrayal of Czechoslovakia, the most pitiful and most pathetic blunder in the world's history. And at the time Mr. Chamberlain said, "We cannot be of any help to Czechoslovakia, let them take Sudetenland" -and this without consulting Czechoslovakia, but giving them the order to comply-France was allied with Czechoslovakia by a treaty, and obliged to defend that country. But she had to retreat and renounce her pledge, thus giving the bastion of Europe together with the Skoda munition works to Mr. Hitler in preparation for the terrible war to come.
Let me relate another incident, which may not be in chronological order. I refer to Hitler's proposed 25-year non-aggression pact with Great Britain. That was, I believe, in 1935. Within two hours after the proposal was submitted to the British foreign office, the German army was walking into the Rhineland. And these know-it-all statesmen could not see that they were dealing with an international gangster whom they could have stopped, and whom they should have stopped in time.
Personally I think a terrible mistake was made by the foreign office. I do not know whether the whole cabinet was aware, but we hold it responsible, by way of ministerial responsibility. To say at one moment that you cannot guarantee Czechoslovakia because you cannot come to her assistance, and then within a year to guarantee the borders of Poland and Roumania, is a farce beyond description.
So that Britain, slowly and by a series of steps, walked into a position where the dignity and prestige of the British empire-I will go so far as to say that-were brought to a position where no one took Britain seriously.


Mr. SKEY:: The Germans did, in the war.


Maurice Hartt: I was going to say how pathetic that remark is.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Don't you believe it?


Maurice Hartt: I was going to say how pathetic it is, that it was not the British statesmen who brought Britain to that position who were killed in the war but the com-
[Mr Uartt.]
mon people who suffered. We know it was the ordinary people-you and I-who went to extricate Britain from that terrible, shortsighted policy.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Speak for yourself.


Maurice Hartt: That is the position. It is very easy to settle somebody else's business as they have done in London. I am not trying to speak disparagingly of Great Britain. I ^till sing "Rule Britannia" with the same fervor as my hon. friends, but I am stating a series of facts which are indisputable, which are definite and categorical. I am not trying to say something that I have invented.
We won the war because of certain fortunate circumstances, but I shall never forget and I do not think any hon. gentleman here will ever forget the tragedy of the days from 1940 to 1941 when Britain stood alone. I know many of you were uneasy; I know many of you were worried, and I say that if it had not been for a mistaken policy on the part of Hitler, God knows what would have happened. If the Japs had not gone crazy and attacked Pea'i Harbor I do not know whether you or I would not have been obliged to say, "Heil Hitler." Not I, for I would not be living; I would probably be a cake of soap.
The course of events which brought England to her present unenviable position was of her own doing. The mistakes that occurred in the second world war were also practised in the first world war. While Germany was attacking France, the British cabinet sat up a whole night deciding whether they should or should not go into the war. They did not realize that there was no alternative; that they had to go into the war as a matter of self-preservation. Sir Edward Grey stood at the window and watched a man turning out the street lamps. He turned and said, "The lamps are going out all over Europe; -we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime." It was a question of being shoved in or carried into the war and afterwards trying to extricate herself by some blunder or through some good fortune. To say that it was a definite policy, to say that Britain knew where she was going, is a mistake. To say that Britain happens to be in her present position through no fault of her own is to close our eyes to facts, without being well-wishers of Great Britain.
Blunders were made not only before the war but during the war. Three gentlemen, and a fourth one, Chiang Kai-shek, arrogated to themselves the pre-determination of the entire world and what was to be done with the other nations. They made agreements at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam about which the world

Supply-External Affairs
knew nothing. When we came to the united nations we were faced with a jait accompli; we had to accept it, otherwise we would have destroyed the only thing we wished to build. Instead of alliances, what have we? We have spheres of influence.
We shout communism. We are so busy with communism that we forget what is going on around us. It was Mr. Churchill and Mr. .Roosevelt who gave Stalin a sphere of influence which he had never dreamed of getting anywhere else. Stalin tried to get it from Hitler and they were negotiating until 1943. All this was given to Stalin before the united nations knew anything about it. This was given by the heads of the nations who participated in the war. They built up this Frankenstein which we are so busy talking about. While Rome is burning we are playing the fiddle.
This totalitarianism which is so nauseating in its nature and in its conception ought to disappear from the face of the earth. There is a complete misconception of communism when applied to the U.S.S.R. There is nothing of the kind in their system of society. To call them communists is to give them a title they do not deserve. There is no communism in Russia; there is just international gangsterism. That is the name for it. To call them communists or socialists is to give a title to their ideology which they do not deserve. The name of slave state or red fascist would be applicable, but the name "communist" is a misnomer and a terrible mistake.
I do not preach war because I do not like it for my own safety or for the safety of my closest neighbours. However I am afraid that we shall not be able to settle this proposition without war. In 1941 when Russia was attacked by Germany I was sitting as member in the Quebec house. I shall mention names so that I can be checked up. At the time I was talking to the Hon. Frangois J. Leduc, a sane, clear-thinking man. He was jumping for joy, and he said to me, "Now we have Hitler". I said, "My dear Frangois, you are building a Frankenstein that will take more to beat than Hitler." He did not agree with me at the time, but when I met him afterwards he told me that he thought I was right.
Russia ganged up on the world after receiving $10 billion in lend-lease, almost half the entire production of the United States. She has used all this to our disadvantage. She took this as a most ungrateful receiver. Our war materials were delivered into Russian territory without our soldiers being permitted to set foot on that territory. She took all she could get with never a thought of repaying it 5849-225
or showing any respect. We had the atom bomb and yet we told Russia that if she would join in the Asiatic war, if she would take a walk down to Korea, we would give her all we could and what she could take.
They cleaned out Manchuria; they cleaned out Poland-I am jumping from the far east to the west-and they cleaned out Korea. Look at what is happening today in Korea. Our united nations is acting like a paralytic in dealing with these problems.


Mr. MacNICOL:: They cleaned out the Balkans and the Baltic states.


Maurice Hartt: Yes. The same policy of ponder and blunder was applied to the near east. That is history and you have all read about it. The world's conscience was shocked into action; and it was said that these people- who had given six million lives, half of our people, to the lethal chambers of Hitler, Jews who had been wilfully destroyed as though it were a matter of sport-good God, I am talking to people who profess to be Christians; I am talking to people who think there is a God, I am talking to people who know spiritual values-would be confirmed in their Jewish homeland.
They gave us one-eighth of what was originally promised by the Balfour declaration. We took it because we were satisfied with little mercies. We must have had confidence in the Christian world to have been able to survive for two thousand years in spite of persecutions, slaughter, murder and everything that could be done, even to dumb animals. We accepted partition gracefully, not ungracefully. We were glad to take it for the sake of peace.
Nothing happened between November 29, 1947, and March, 1948, when all of a sudden we heard of a trusteeship which is still being debated without solution and which will require twice the present army to enforce. Now, we have a fait accompli. The Jewish state is an accomplished fact. We do not call upon the nations to come to help us. We simply say, "You fulfil your obligations and we will fulfil ours". Their obligation is to keep the surrounding countries from invading Palestine. We will look after Palestine and the little bit of territory that you have assigned to us. The nations did not believe that we could do it. At Lake Success they came to us, or came to our delegations. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, I say "us" because I am Jewish. I never belonged to the zionist movement. I never was a zionist, but I do not differentiate between Zionists and Jews; they are one and the same. Those who want to introduce that note of division are simply
Supply-External Affairs

not doing justice to this subject. Those who call themselves Zionists are the active leaders of a group that want to see the Jews have a Jewish homeland. It was promised to them; the Jews are in Palestine as a matter of right, not as a matter of grace.
It was under the aegis of the league of nations, under the mandate of Great Britain, that the Jews were settled in all Palestine including Trans-Jordan. The Jews accepted it, not as gift but in repayment for services. When Hitler destroyed the 6,000,000 Jews, his argument was that it was not the German army that lost the first world war but rather it was hunger that defeated them. The Jews of Poland were the purveyors of food to the German army, and the moment they heard of the Balfour declaration, they stopped supplying Germany with food. Hitler advanced that claim and nobody has refuted it to this day. The Germans, being an accurate people, kept records to prove this contention. We paid for that with 6,000,000 lives.
Jewish armies went into Palestine under Lord Allenby. We fought for Palestine. Britain recognized and admitted that. During the first world war Doctor Weitzman invented and gave Britain T.N.T., for which he was offered riches and titles. This he refused in exchange for Palestine. When the Jews went into Palestine they bought every piece of land and paid fifty times its actual value. The Effendi took the money, went to live in Paris and had a good time. When they had spent the money, they came back and with the help of the colonial office began to question the Balfour declaration.
After the last war the Arabs, who had been subjects of the Ottoman empire, did not inhabit that part of the country. Even today Trans-Jordan has only 350,000 people, and it is twice the size of western Palestine. They were a bunch of squatters. The moment the Jews got hold of it, it prospered. We have a habit of bringing prosperity wherever we go and the countries which we leave keep sinking. Those who dream of our destruction are .themselves destroyed. It seems that those ^who dream of our destruction have not learned that we have outlived the Romans, ihat Spain was reduced to poverty, that the Italians were reduced to the organ-grinders of the world. It is strange that people have not learned that those who plotted the destruction of the Jews were subsequently destroyed themselves. History proves that; and history repeats itself. Perhaps it is because we dream too well. Perhaps it is

because we hope too well. We have paid the price, but so have those who wanted to destroy us.
When the Effendi had spent the money in Paris, they came back and suddenly discovered that the Jews had no rights, and the colonial office immediately detached Transjordan. Speeches were being made all over the world and advice given to all plotters that the Balfour declaration did not mean this and did not mean that. However, the people who survived Lord Balfour stated repeatedly-and Mr. Churchill is one of them-that the Jews were in Palestine as of right and that the country belongs to them. The declaration was twice implemented in international law. Twenty-six committees appointed by the mandatory nations came back with reports that Palestine belongs to the Jews as a matter of right. One commission after another was appointed. After the Anglo-American commission two books were published. They exposed the inquiry as the most tragic joke that could have happened to a commission. Bartley Crum came out with a book called "Behind the Silken Curtain," and he states that when those delegates were briefed by the colonial office in England and the foreign office or the department of state in the United States, the thing appeared like a huge joke. It was only a matter of stalling for time. The second book by Crossman is equally devastating.
Britain was backing out of her responsibility. She brought the Palestine question to the united nations at the request of no one. No one asked Britain to do that. She felt that she could not carry on. What is a nation with honour and tradition to do when it cannot carry on a given responsibility? Lay down the mandate and say to the united nations, "We cannot carry on," or "We feel that our mandate has expired." Instead of this, she was constantly and perpetually damaging the whole system that she had installed.
The Jews never thought of establishing a Palestine without a Britain. I confess to you, Mr. Speaker, and you can read Doctor Hertzel's speech at the first congress of the Zionist congress in 1897. He said "We look to and shall continually work with Britain and, under the guidance of Britain with other international humanitarians, thus to end the sufferings of our people. These are the people that will eventually give us a homeland."

Supply-External Affairs
It is true Britain gave us our start. We cannot deny that but for Britain we would never have had a foothold on the territory. But now that she cannot solve the question, she is acting like a policeman or a detective who cannot solve a murder crime by arresting the corpse. At Lake Success, last November, committee after committee went to the united nations or to the Jewish agency and said, "We know what Jerusalem means to you; it is important to three religions. Give up your claim and you will gain the good will of the world." We did! Palestine to the Jewish people without Jerusalem has no meaning. Every prayer book we have-and we have never renounced	Palestine-always
refers to Jerusalem and Zion, not Tel Aviv or any port city. We are not seeking any aggrandizement of territory. We want Jerusalem because there we go to pray-go as God wanted us to do there.
What was the result? The Jews did not want to give up Jerusalem. But the matter was put to them on this basis: "It is a centre of three great religions, the Christian, the Mohammedan and the Jewish. Let us put it under an international trusteeship." The Jews consented on religious or spiritual grounds.
It will be noticed from a study of history that the Jews never fought for territory. From
Titus to Hadrian they always submitted and paid their taxes. But when Hadrian wanted to put his image in the temple, they rose in rebellion and fought until they were destroyed. The Jews know the spiritual value of religion. They respect other people's religions. After all, we are the progenitors of those religions. They were not just pulled out of thin air. We gave them to you, and there is nothing in Christianity or Mohammedanism that is not Jewish. We only wish that you would carry out their precepts.
We consented to that trusteeship of Jerusalem. What did the united nations do? Nobody went in. Not a soldier nor a policeman was sent in. The Jewish people had to fight for the preservation of Jerusalem for the three great faiths. No sooner did they meet with a little success than Britain suddenly realized that the condition had deteriorated and arms are now flowing in, such an cannon, aeroplanes and so on. The mandatory nation has exceeded its mandate. While Britain gave us a start, she has missed the boat. She could have had an outpost in Palestine, a situation which we never dreamed would be otherwise. We believed in Britain. When the Kaiser 5849-225J
offered us Palestine, we laughed at him; but when Britain offered it, we accepted and respected that offer. The same thing happened in Jaffa. The united nations are fiddling while Palestine is burning and while the holy places are being destroyed.
While we are discussing international affairs,
I must express my gratitude to the Canadian government. There can be no reproach that Canada has said that in Palestine the Jews should have their commonwealth. Churchill said it; Morrison said it; Attlee said it; Bevin said it during the election campaign of 1945, and it was repeated at every national congress of the Labour party. It was freely given. We accepted their word. In 1939 when the white paper was issued-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time is exhausted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Horace King: If the hon. member has
the unanimous consent of the house, he may carry on.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Maurice Hartt: In 1939 Mr. Chamberlain issued the white paper, the most ill-timed declaration that could have been made. The Jews were trapped in Germany and they knew they would be destroyed. Mr. Chamberlain knew just as well that they did not have a place to which to run, and the white paper was issued. It said that the Jews could not go to Palestine, the only country in the world which was supposed to have been given to them. They were told they could not go there and they could not buy land.
When war broke out, what happened? Thirty thousand Jews in Palestine enlisted. They fought at El Alamein. General Montgomery will vouch for that statement. They fought in Italy; they fought in the desert; they fought underground and everywhere for the British empire. They had hoped, and the hope was not unfounded, that when the war once finished they should be able to get what was coming to them. We were badly disappointed; we are terribly bewildered. We did not know whom to blame and do not know where we are going. We say to you people now, for two thousand years we have been the butt of ridicule and persecution all over the world. Every moron, every pipsqueak, every sadist who wanted to get a sort of paroxysm by sublimation used the Jew as the butt of his efforts.
We Jews of the western hemisphere are satisfied with Christian neighbours. We may
Supply-External Affairs

eventually become completely absorbed in the country and may cease to be Jews. We do not know the future. But those who are persecuted in the lands where their ancestors were and their families were destroyed, where the streets are still blood bespattered with that of Jewish mothers and children, are in a different position. For God's sake, for humanity's sake, let them go where they can have some peace.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in opening this debate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) said that collective security was the primary objective of our foreign policy. I am sure that he has general support for that aim. He also said it was the intention of the government, in so far as it could, to make the united nations an effective organization. There again I am certain that he received a large measure of approval from the Canadian people. It is interesting to note that in these declarations we see today an obvious and welcome change in policy from that which existed during the thirties.
It has been said that the aim of foreign policy is to achieve that which is desirable in the light of that which is possible. Conceivably that might be a dangerous doctrine; for national governments in the field of external affairs so frequently underestimate that which is possible. I think we saw that in 1935 when it would have been easily possible to stop Mussolini and his fascist hordes in their attack on Abyssinia; and had we succeeded in doing that, there is the distinct chance that perhaps even the war itself might have been averted. At least we did not realize then what was possible and I hope that we do not perpetuate the mistake.
Our objectives should be to help build the united nations into an effective international instrument for the maintenance of law and order and what I call fundamental human decency. Not only would such a policy redound to the credit of Canada as a nation, but since it offers the surest way to the establishment of world peace on the basis of justice and regard for human rights, it follows that it must be the wisest course for us to pursue.
In the course of his remarks the minister said that one of his tasks, one of the government's tasks, indeed, was to reconcile our duty to our people with our responsibility to the world. In following out such a policy, which also is the policy of the government, it is obvious that such reconciliation has been achieved. The house will notice that I have not said that peace is the main or is the principal objective. We had peace in the twenties
and the thirties. We talked about peace. It became an opiate; and in talking about peace I was not the least guilty. We had peace, but it was an unjust, uneasy and suspicious peace. We had peace, but China was attacked and Abyssinia was submerged; we had peace when Austria was violated and Czechoslovakia was engulfed. We had peace when a world was crying with injustice and rampant with lawlessness. Wte had peace when Europe was brimming with persecution and pregnant with fear; but every one of us knew in our own minds that that sort of peace was but the prelude to war. We must remember that in our talk of peace in the future or eventually it will become once again something entirely negative and finish up as it did in 1939. That is why I say it is more important to concentrate on the maintenance of law and order and, by maintaining that, and if necessary by the use of force, it follows as day follows night that peace must emerge.
Of course we shall have to surrender a substantial measure of our national sovereignty to an international organization, and I wish to see that done as rapidly as possible, because I am convinced that rival nationalisms have done much to stir up wars which we have seen in the world in the past. There are those, of course, who would oppose that view. There are those who regard internationalism as an act of the devil for all practical purposes. We have the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and it is possible that they might agree with this quotation which I am going to read:
One of the directions of the ideological campaign which accompanies the plans for enslaving Europe is an attack on the principle of national sovereignty, an appeal for the renunciation of sovereign rights set off by the idea of a "world government" . . . Taken up by the bourgeois intelligentsia, dreamers and pacifists, the idea of "world government" is [DOT]being used not only as a means of ideologically disarming the peoples still defending their independence from the encroachments of American imperialism, but also as a slogan specially aimed at the Soviet union, which consistently defends the principle of true equality and the maintenance of the sovereign rights of all nations, great or small . . .
The author of that statement was M. Zhdanov who is one of the ten principal men in the Kremlin. There we have this extraordinary position, the representatives from Wetaskiwin and Temiscouata and the Kremlin all agreed upon a common policy. When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that if I oppose it there is some certainty of my being correct.

Supply-External Affairs
It has been said by too many speakers in this house without elaboration that the united nations is weak and that it cannot be depended upon. What do they expect from an organization which is still in its swaddling clothes, but two or three years old? It has not yet had a chance to prove itself. It is not the united nations which is weak; it is not the idea which is weak because, as I said before about the league of nations and say again of the united nations, mankind had the wit to conceive a great idea, but it is doubtful if we have the will to implement it. If the united nations fails it is not entirely because of some inherent fault in that organization, but the fault shall lie within ourselves. The united nations, as the league of nations was, is ah example of the whole being much greater than its parts.
The old league of nations was betrayed by those w-ho professed for it the highest esteem, and I hope that act of betrayal does not take place again in our time because, always, we shall be faced with an alternative. Here is the united nations; what is our alternative? It is obvious what it *will be; chaos, misery and war. Either we make the united nations an effective instrument of policy, as we say we will, and assume all the responsibilities which that implies, or we prepare for the inevitability of war; and what will come out of that war even I would not dare to forecast.
However I am in considerable agreement with those who believe that today major war is remote, though I would say this, that if there is such a war, then, whether we like it or not, no matter how much we squirm and twist and strive and struggle, we shall be in that, war. We shall not be able to escape it.
Therefore I think it would pay us as a nation, in the council of the nations of the world, to take a position in the van, a position of leadership for those things which we consider right and proper. We shall have to take a certain amount of responsibility, but at least we shall be doing something to avert what would be a catastrophe to all our people.
If a major war happens, whether we are in the van of the nations or so far behind that we cannot be seen, we shall find ourselves in it. But I can see no reason why Canada cannot give moral leadership in the united nations today, and we would find there many friends, the closest of which would be perhaps New Zealand and Australia. This much is certain, however. Our international relations have to be built on the basis of morality and of that confidence of which I have spoken.
The day this debate opened I was discussing some of the speeches with the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine), and during the course of the discussion I said that a nation must be
prepared to live up to its pledged word and honour its commitments. In a world of power politics that belief is perhaps somewhat naive, and yet that same night when I got home I read Churchill's "Memoirs" and I found I had distinguished endorsation. Dealing with international morality, he said:
There is however, one hopeful guide, namely, for a nation to keep its word and to act in accordance with its treaty obligations to its allies.
That is the principle upon which my ideas are based, for I believe that what is morally wrong can never under any circumstances be politically right.
I have said that in my opinion the chances of war are remote, and I have reasons for such a belief. Let me also say this. I believe that the people of Russia do not want war; but after three years of thinking, watching and studying, I have come to the conclusion that the leaders of that people believe that war with the western world is inevitable. Perhaps the limit they might put on the inevitability would fee ten years, but at least we have ten years in which to avert the cataclysm.
The present policy of the Kremlin is obviously not only animated by the dynamic of what they call communism but is a projection of czarist imperialism, and today Russia is an expansionist nation, partly from internal compulsion and partly because of this czarist legacy.
Most of the resources in Russia today are concentrated on the production of capital goods, and therefore it is obvious that the production of consumer goods is suffering and that the standard of living is poor. Indeed, from what I can find out it is so poor that it is surprising to find no communist party actively at work in Moscow. In an attempt to ease the strain on the people and to divert their attention from their present miseries, their leaders may be tempted to indulge in further forays abroad in the hope of securing additional resources whereby they can improve the standards of living of their people.
I believe that the aim of the Soviet union is not only the recovery of all that was lost in 1917 but also the achievement of all that she would have gained had she been victorious in 1918. We can see now how far that has gone and what countries have been swallowed during the war and after: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, and part of western Germany. These are already within the orbit of the Soviets. The U.S.S.R. has secured the hegemony over the Balkans which they desired so long. But in the secret treaties of 1915 they were also promised part of
Supply-External Affairs

northern Persia, the straits and Constantinople. These ambitions have not yet been achieved, and in an effort to discourage any further aspirations on the part of the Kremlin I can see no alternative at this moment to a policy of containment, negative it is true, but at least it gives us a chance to find out whether there is some modus vivendi which we can arrive at in order to maintain, with honour, the peace of the world.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Before recess, Mr. Speaker, I said I thought we had ten years' grace in which to try to create a world organization which would effectively maintain law and order. I said that for this reason. To a large extent today wars are won in factories and industrial plants; and while I believe the Russian industrial potential is even greater than many of us think, nevertheless at this time it is quite inadequate for any major excursion. As far as I can find out, in 1939 the Russian percentage of industrial production, as compared with the industrial production of the world, was something like twelve per cent, and at that time the industrial production of the United States was forty per cent of world production. Today in Russia, despite the ravishment of war, they have increased their industrial production to some fifteen per cent of the world production. While they have succeeded in doing this, however, the United States percentage has increased to 60 per cent.
If we take into consideration the productive powers of the satellite countries which have fallen into the maw of the bear, we arrive at a figure of some twenty-five per cent of the total world production which is under Russian control. When one compares that with the sixty per cent of the United States, one can see quite readily that the Soviet union is in 10 position just now to wage a major war. Furthermore, it has been estimated that at the end of the current five-year plan steel production in Russia will only equal the steel production of Europe before the start of the war, or, in other words, something like sixty million tons of steel, which is, of course, only two-thirds of the current United States production. The Ukraine as an industrial area has been largely destroyed, and apparently the Soviet rulers see no reason to rebuild in that area another industrial community. Instead, to a large extent they are moving their
resources east of the Urals, and today in that area more than fifty per cent of the Russian production of steel, iron and coal is carried on. In addition, more than half the capital investment which is envisaged under the five-year plan will also be made in that part of Russia.
As I said, arms production is decisive in war, and the Russians have not yet attained the position where they have anything approaching equality, let alone supremacy. There are some who believe that we could stumble into war accidentally. I cannot accept that belief. Today nations plan for war on the most careful basis, and the possibility of our stumbling into it is, I think, far-fetched and quite remote.
We have also to remember that the Russians have allies; that over and above the eighteen million men they have in their armed forces they have allies in other nations, in the shape of communist parties which are active in those other countries. I do not agree with those who say that our greatest enemy in this country, for instance, is the communist party. I cannot accept that. Our greatest enemies in1 Canada are the slums and poverty and the malnutrition on which communism thrives. Eradicate these things and automatically we eradicate the fifth column of communism. If we wish to put that dynamic quality into our democracy for which the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked, then we have to give the people some faith for the future and some infinitely better conditions for the present.
Another ally on which the Russians count to some extent is the hope of a depression in
capitalist countries. I believe the western nations under capitalism are as well aware of that as the Russians, and a great deal will depend upon the fiscal policies which are undertaken, as to whether or not we play into the hands of the Russians in this matter. However we need have no illusions at all as to the basic intentions of Russian policy; and, as I said previously we must be prepared to withstand it. For that reason I welcome the apparent initiative shown by this government in trying to form some sort of Atlantic union.
I also said earlier that we should contain Russia. In itself that is an entirely negative policy. We shall not defeat the spread of communism merely by creating larger armies. We shall only defeat it, I am convinced, in the way Suggested by my leader, when he said:
The best defence of democracy lies in the establishment of social and economic justice, and in respect for those fundamental human freedoms which are the basis of our own democratic way of life.

Supply-External Affairs
Then what of the other great nation in the world, the United States? One has only to read the debates in the house of representatives and the senate, and to examine the budgets of the United States, to see that, while that country is not disarmed, certainly she is in no military position to wage war. It has been said, of course, that she has the atomic bomb, and that is a constant threat. But I suggest that if there were any signs at all of the United States using the atomic bomb, immediately Europe would be inundated with Russian troops which would be dispersed over the whole continent; and the atomic bomb would not be of much use against them unless we were prepared to leave Europe in such devastation that its only future would be barbarism. I do not think the United States is at all anxious or eager for war; and I am convinced that, for the time being at least, it has no intention of using the atomic bomb as a weapon.
However we have to consider certain paradoxes in the policies of the western nations which I believe are playing squarely into the hands of the Soviet union. In Greece we are supporting an obviously reactionary government which has no program of social change for its own people. It is a government that has sent into hiding in the mountains among the guerrillas not only communists but democratic socialists like myself, and Liberals like some hon. gentlemen opposite. In recent months in that country there has been little opportunity for freedom of speech or for objection to what the government is doing. So, by bolstering up this outmoded reaction, when the American and British troops leave that country the inevitable swing will be to the extreme left, and we shall have succeeded in doing that which we feared most.
In Germany today we see a people utterly disillusioned over our concept of democracy, when they see us putting back into positions of power and eminence those same industrialists who in such large measure helped to build the nazi regime. In Italy the same thing is true to a certain extent.
In China we see a corrupt, venal government being bolstered by western finances and western aid. Many of the peasants of China have no conception of democracy as we know it; and they are prepared to exchange the totalitarianism under which they live, with the landlord system, for the totalitarianism of the Soviets as long as the latter means that they will get some land which may be a guarantee to them of life. We must realize that we have not yet learned how to combat communism when we support reaction.
One other matter about which I wish to speak is the situation which exists in Palestine. I intend to deal with it in a more detailed way than did the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he spoke in this debate. I have no desire to delve into history or to examine in any detail the history of the last thirty years. Suffice it to say that I am intellectually satisfied with the rights of the Jewish people to a national home in the area of the Mediterranean. And I think there are many who share my belief, especially when one considers the united nations committee's report, and the action of the assembly itself.
I am morally satisfied that the Jewish people have a right to a national home in that part of the Mediterranean. It was promised to them, in far greater extent than that which they are now getting, by the allied and associated powers at the end of the last war. It was promised to them by the Arabs, even, at the end of the last war. And the promise was made by the British Labour party, iterated and reiterated, that they would do everything possible to see that a national home was built up in Palestine.
As I said earlier, to me a promise is something which is not lightly given but, once given, it should be kept. Over and above that there is the tragic fact that more than six million Jewish people died under nazism since the early thirties. Today the remnants of them in Europe have apparently no hope of salvation from any Christian nation. Therefore their eyes are turned, and quite understandably, toward Palestine as a refuge and as a home.
During the last twenty-five or thirty years the position of the United Kingdom has been anomalous. It has been responsible to the people in that area as the mandatory power. But it has also had a responsibility to its own people, as a great imperial power. And when (here was a clash and conflict of interest we need not be surprised if those who were under the mandate were not the ones to benefit.
Furthermore, we had the situation in Palestine itself. In dealing with the inhabitants, so often it happened that what pleased the Jewish people was not acceptable to the Arabs. And of course that which placated the Arabs did not please the Jews. The position was bedevilled and much worsened by the insensate Arab and Jewish terrorism which has taken place through these years.
But I wish to deal with the situation more particularly from November 29 last, when the general assembly made its decision. In helping to formulate that decision Canada played
3ocO
Supply-External Affairs

a courageous and an honourable part, much different from some of the roles which we have played in the past in international affairs. But in the middle of December Mr. Creech-Jones, the colonial secretary, expressed the hope in the British House of Commons that the greatest respect would be shown the decision of the international authority. And on the next day, December 12, Mr. Bevin echoed these words when he said that if he could render any assistance to the decision of the united nations assembly, he would do so.
The assembly asked that a free port be established by February in Palestine. That was not done. They asked that Jewish immigration be increased. That was not done. And yet through these months Arab immigration and armed Arab immigration increased.
The united nations expected, and rightly so, co-operation in helping its committee to be established in Palestine. That also was not done. It is true that the United Kingdom government said it would not participate in any decision which did not have the approval of both sides, and from a positive point of view it did not participate in any decision. I venture to suggest, however, that it may have participated in a more indirect sense. There were treaty obligations with Iraq and Egypt which demanded that the British government supply both these countries with arms. I am convinced that these arms will ultimately find their way into the hands of those who are today battling the Jewish people. There is also this fact that the frontier force of Transjordan is commanded, officered and in fact subsidized by the British government. And King Abdullah has already told us that he intends to use that force, in his words, to destroy the Jews.
The Jewish people, whose lives are in danger in Palestine, are there because of British co-operation and, as has been mentioned in the house today, there is gratitude for that co-operation. Nevertheless, surely good faith demands that they be allowed to protect themselves. Such is not happening. Arab states have openly prepared for war, in defiance of the assembly's decision. And so the least that can be done is to permit the Jews to purchase the military equipment which is so necessary for their own safety.
It could have been possible, and still is possible, to build up in the eastern part of the Mediterranean a great bastion for democracy, which we would appreciate highly these days. But apparently that was prevented, largely because of the foreign office belief in the importance of the Arabs as allies. It is a belief which history shows-and has shown recently-is not well founded.
For instance, in January of this year a treaty was arrived at between the British government and the government of Iraq, which was repudiated' immediately in Bagdad. We heard the promise of Mr. Bevin that the Emir Feisal would be arriving in London next month, February, to negotiate another agreement. But the Emir omitted to come. The British helped to confer sovereignty on the Iraqi. They used it for one purpose only during the war, and that was to rebel against our cause on one of those days when the going was darkest.
Egypt was given sovereignty, and yet she used it to maintain sullen neutrality-again when things were at their blackest-a neutrality which I am convinced would have changed rapidly to open support, had the forces of Rommel reached Cairo or Alexandria.
There was also the white paper presented by the British government in 1939 in an attempt to placate the Arabs; and all that was had from them in return was lukewarm participation in the war on our side, while their leaders, men like the Mufti and others were actively conniving and scheming with the nazis in Berlin.
I say the British will find that the cost of Arab friendship has been expensive, for all their other attachments have been sacrificed. French interests and Jewish hopes have been laid on the altar of Arab intransigence, and the gift has been spurned. I do not profess to understand this pandering to feudal monarchs and the most reactionary and, indeed, treacherous interests in the middle cast. I share completely my leader's condemnation of such a policy.
What of the United States? On March 19 last it reversed its position respecting partition; and the United States had been one of the proponents of partition. It has been said by Senator Brewster that the oil interests had quite a lot to do with this reversal. We do know that certain oil companies, with capitalization of slightly over a million dollars, have, since the war ended, earned in profits from the middle east almost $117 million. I do not know whether they had any influence or not upon the United States decision; but if they had, then not all the oil in Araby will cleanse the stain from the hands of the state department.
However I think there was some other motive behind the United States 'Veversal, and that motive was fear of Russia-apparently a paralysing fear, one which has an hypnotic effect. The story goes that Russia, through Mr. Gromyko, was going to suggest before the security council that the United' States and the Soviet union undertake jointly the responsibility of partitioning Palestine. The United States, along with other nations, were deter-

Supply-External Affairs
mined not to permit Russian troops to get on the Mediterranean, and therefore we have this hasty and ill-conceived suggestion of a trusteeship.
I think partition would have been possible, and with Russian troops participating. Had the united nations asked for troops, Russian as well as British and American, it is unbelievable that they would have allowed those national units to settle in any one part of Palestine and thus give the Russians an opportunity of setting up another Soviet zone of influence. Rather the troops would have been dispersed all across Palestine, and if the Russians had not accepted that suggestion, if they had refused to co-operate, then they could have had no objection if they were left out of the scheme.
The minister said the other day that he ruled out the immediate implementation of partition as not being practical. I would remind my right hon. friend that partition is already accomplished. What is the alternative? As I said before, we have to treat these matters in the light of alternatives. Is it trusteeship? There has been a trusteeship in Palestine for thirty years and it has been a tragic failure. Is there any hope or guarantee that a future trusteeship will be any better? I say that trusteeship is not the alternative. But there is another alternative to partition. I am convinced that that alternative is the complete and utter extermination of the Jewish people in Palestine. They will sacrifice everything. Perhaps there are those who believe my words are far-fetched, but I do not think so.
A few weeks ago I met in New York a young man nineteen or twenty years of age. He had seen his mother bayoneted; he had seen his father compelled to dig a grave, then shot in the back of his head and thrown into it. He had seen his brother taken from his side to the gas chamber. He himself had escaped that fate because he was of strong physique and could be used for other purposes. During those months and years he was humiliated and beaten and tortured until he is now a man whom one would think nothing could touch or nothing could reach. But he is the embodiment of hope. He is determination clothed in flesh and blood. He is determined that his people will never again have to suffer such barbarism at Christian hands. He sees no alternative to setting up a state for his people in Palestine. I ask the minister to believe that his fellows in Palestine are equally determined, and we should ponder carefully the consequences of our actions in this matter.
My last word and perhaps an unduly sombre conclusion. Palestine is a great issue before 5849-226
the united nations just now; yet in the days to come there will be equally great problems raised to vex and perplex the nations of the world. There is only one basis that I can see for their solution and that is to do, under our heritage, what we consider to be right and just. It is upon that basis that the united nations will stand or fall, will fail or succeed. If it fails, the consequences to our people will be disastrous, for once again we shall enter into that long night of fear and oppression which can end only in war.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, there are four main requisites of sound foreign policy for democratic nations: one, the guarding and preservation of the sovereignty of one's own country; two, the defence of the sovereignty of other nations and peoples who in the event of war would defend our sovereignty by defending their own; three, a proper and realistic defence policy; four, understanding among a group of nations or alliance of a number of powers strong enough to resist any coalition of hostile powers. Between world war I and world war II, Canada and the other democratic countries of the western world were guilty of inexcusable floundering with respect to each and every one of the four requisites of a sound democratic foreign policy.
Last Thursday afternoon, April 29, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) made what I considered to be a speech of historic significance. In the first place, the minister's speech was perhaps the first creditable pronouncement of the government's foreign policy ever made in this chamber. Second, the minister's pronouncement is even more significant when we realize that it represents a complete reversal of the previous foreign policy of the government. Third, the government has fallen into line with the United States and the United Kingdom in abandoning the suicidal policy which brought western Europe to the brink of disaster.
If one had not followed closely the government's foreign policy in the past he would naturally be tempted to congratulate the government upon its present pronouncement. What surprises me is the fact that the Canadian people tolerated the government's previous policy so long without expressing alarm over the situation into which the government has led Canada. In view of this fact, I might say that if it is considered proper to congratulate the captain of a ship upon having steered the ship into troubled waters and then eventually finding a proper course, then I
oso2
Supply-External Affairs

presume the government should be congratulated upon its present foreign policy. But if we take the view that originally the government should have taken the course which it has now taken, then I am not so sure whether much time should be spent on congratulations.
It seems to me that the same criticism might be made by the people of the United Kingdom and those of the United States with respect to their governments. I for one do not understand how free and intelligent people could have allowed themselves to be pushed around by the communists for so long. I hope I may be allowed to proceed without spending more time on congratulating the government upon having changed its foreign policy, something it should have done long ago.
In my opinion the government has changed its foreign policy in at least eight respects. The speech made by the minister of external affairs on April 29 is deserving of careful examination and analysis. I should like to refer to the eight particulars in which I think the government has changed its policy. First, we have the fact that the minister announced that the government's foreign policy is a change from the government's past practices. In the past the government's policy was to sit on the fence. We often regarded Canada's haphazard activities in the international field as an expression of Canada's foreign policy. As a matter of fact, until a year ago Canada did not have a separate minister for the department. The department was a sort of sideline for Canada's prime ministers.
The second point on which the government changed its position is this. Nowhere in the minister's long speech did he repeat the former view of some of his colleagues, advocating the relinquishment of a part of Canada's sovereignty in exchange for what they called "the extension of Canada's sovereignty into a wider field," namely, to the "disunited nations organization" which has adopted the name of the united nations. Contrary to the government's former policy, on this occasion the minister emphasized Canada's sovereignty, and he added that during the next year and a half Canada at times will have to declare its position publicly on certain matters. In a word, Canada as a nation is adopting a more definite external policy, keeping an eye on her own interests as well as on the interests of other nations which choose to co-operate with us on a reciprocal basis. I need hardly say that I agree with the minister on his present- stand.
While I am discussing this point, I wish to say also that, on reading some of the speeches

delivered by Canadian public men, I find one delivered at the University of Rochester on June 16, 1947, by Mr. L. B. Pearson, Canada's under-secretary of state for external affairs. I was pleased to find that our under-secretary of state is as realistic as he showed himself to be in that speech, which really covered the subject uppermost in the minds of the people of Canada at the present time. Our representative of the external affairs department did credit to Canada when he spoke on that occasion.
The third point on which the government changed its position is this. As I interpret it, in the government's present external policy it has abandoned its former view on the "federal union proposals," the "ideas of internationalism" and the "dream of one world," a view advocated for a number of years by several of the minister's colleagues in the cabinet. On April 29 the minister no longer spoke of one world. On the contrary, he made it plain that at the present time there were two worlds. The minister did not place too much hope in global remedies for world ills, as his colleagues have done so enthusiastically since June 22, 1941. In a word, there is a lull in the "one-world" or "federal union" propaganda.
I thought it was significant that the government no longer holds that the united nations organization is the only effective method of bringing about at least some semblance of order in the world, in the matter of maintaining peace. The government seems to be more realistic now. Perhaps the government has by now had time to take a close look at the workings of international organizations such as UNRRA, IRO, and of course the united nations organization. The democratic nations were all outwitted in most of the important moves. There is no doubt about that. The communists who, we thought, were inexperienced in foreign affairs, made profitable use of these international organizations; and when decisions were made against the interests of the Soviets, they vetoed such decisions.
The fourth point on which the government has changed its stand, according to the speech which the minister delivered to this house last Thursday, is with respect to its attitude toward communism. Speaking for the government, the minister now states that communism and democracy are irreconcilable. I agree with him. Not only that, but the minister went so far as to say that even toleration is becoming quite difficult. The only thing that I should like to say on this point is that

Supply-External Affairs
it is regrettable that it took the government so long to realize that fact; for as we know, the government leaned backwards and actually appeased the communists now and then when it thought it was to its advantage. It is difficult to understand what the government thought it could gain by its former policy of merely whispering when it should have spoken out loudly. Perhaps the government thought it was fooling the communists. But let me say, Mr. Speaker, that no one is fooling anybody.


An hon. MEMBER:: Except themselves.


Anthony Hlynka: If we think we are fooling someone, we are really fooling ourselves. Then again I wish to mention that the government left the impression that it believed that the Comintern was dissolved a few years ago. When it was resurrected a number of prominent Canadians expressed surprise that it was revived. The only surprising feature in this connection is the fact that there could have been intelligent Canadians who believed that the Comintern was ever dissolved or that that move was ever meant to be a sincere one.
There are also those who are surprised at what took place in Czechoslovakia. As a matter of fact, one minister asked me what I thought of the sudden change there. I told him that I was not surprised. He said, "Oh, no?" I said, "No." The reason I was not surprised' was simply that I did not expect anything else. Surely no one of us could have thought that anything other would happen in Czechoslovakia than what actually happened. Surely all of us should have seen through that. But we were deluding ourselves by thinking that the communists were carrying on their manoeuvres for the good of their health. Let me say that every move which they make is calculated. They spend time and more time in calculating their moves, and they have mobilized the best brains they can find to do the thinking for them. We need not fool ourselves that it is always on our side that the clever thinking is done. Therefore I say we should not be surprised by these moves which are made from time to time by the communists.
The fifth point on which the government changed its stand is that the government now believes in revitalization of democracy in Canada. The minister expressed himself quite clearly on the advisability of a revitalization of democracy rather than of adhering to its former policy of drifting down the socialist road and saying that Canada had to follow the line of the trend of events. That was, of course, a puny argument, but the fact remains 5849-226J
that the government was undecided, did no-t make up its mind what its policy should be, and the easiest thing for it was to drift along.
I am glad that the minister made this announcement and saw the possibilities. I should say the only thing that we can do is to revitalize true democratic principles and put them into practice, and surely no philosophy of life in this age can compete with the results which a true democracy can bring to its people.
The sixth point on which the government changed its position is that the government has ended its isolationist policy or the policy of indifference with respect to fhe attitude of the government particularly toward Europe. For the first time in the life of this nation, the government, through its minister, expressed the view that other nations' problems were Canadian problems directly or indirectly. Therefore, in the field of international affairs Canada has now abandoned its policy of no concern with the problems of other nations on the ground that they were European and that we lived on the North American continent. To be fair, I will say this, in time of war Canada never held the isolation stand, but in time of peace it advocated isolationism as a fine thing. In my opinion the present stand of the government means the abandonment of its isolationism or its indifference so far as European and world affairs are concerned.
The seventh point on which the government has changed its view is that it apparently now believes in a return to the balance of power arrangement. In the matter of future security the Canadian government has come back to the concept of alliance, or the balance of power, as it is called. The minister did not, of course, use these words. He merely referred to this arrangement as "mutual friendship", "solidarity", "mutual interdependence" and "free co-operation" of the western nations in defence of the democratic way of life. However, to me it is still an alliance or the balance of power arrangement. It has many faults, of course, but it was found that it was not so out-moded as the government's spokesman said it was in the past.
The minister placed considerable emphasis on the advisability of co-operation with the nations of the British commonwealth, with the United States and with other western European nations, and I might add that I completely agree with him in that regard.
The eighth point, and my last one, on which the government has changed its external policy is in the matter of internal and external security; in other words, Canada's defence. It
Supply-External Affairs

appeared to roe that all the speakers who have taken part in this debate thus far missed the most important point in the minister's speech, and the most important point in the entire debate on this subject, namely, that between world war I and world war II the government's view on defence was indifferent, or pacifist, to use a somewhat stronger term. The government regarded European affairs as purely European affairs. The government actually held the view that the only way to preserve peace was by disarmament. The minister made it unmistakably clear that today the government believes that the way to assure peace is to be adequately armed and prepared. The minister also made it unmistakably clear where the government stood in the event of another world war. In reference to this subject the minister laid emphasis on the internal and external security which should have been the policy of Canada at all times. I consider this point so important that I wish to place on record the commitments both of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On March 17 (he Prime Minister, in commenting on the five-power treaty signed at Brussels, had this to say, as reported in Hansard at page 2303:
The peoples of all free countries may be assured that Canada will play her full part in every movement to give substance to the conception of an effective system of collective security by the development of regional pacts under the charter of the united nations.
In the speech which the Prime Minister delivered at Williamsburg on April 2, he, said:
A way must be found, and that right speedily, to ensure that the nations that are still free will not be suborned, defeated or destroyed one by one.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his reference to this subject, said, as recorded at page 3449 of Hansard:
Without sacrificing the universality of the united nations, it is possible for the free nations of the world to form their own closer association for collective self-defence under article 51 of the charter of the united nations. Such an association could be created within the united nations by those free states which are willing to accept more specific and onerous obligations than those contained in the charter in return for greater national security than the united nations can now give its members.
It may be that the free states, or some of them, will soon find it necessary to consult together on how best to establish such a collective security league. It might grow out of the plans for "western union" now maturing in Europe.
Further down he repeats a similar thought, makes the matter still clearer, and goes on to say:
. . . to confront the forces of communist expansionism with an overwhelming preponder-

ance of moral, economic and military force and with sufficient degree of unity to ensure that this preponderance of force is so used that the free nations cannot be defeated one by one.
I should like to put one or two quotations on the record, because in my opinion this was one of the most important pronouncements ever made in this chamber.


George Randolph Pearkes: In view of the fact that the auxiliary air force under the government's scheme is a little over 650 men, does the hon. member regard that as anything but lip service to these principles?


Anthony Hlynka: I am not in a position to express a view one way or the other on that point. The hon. member may be right or he may be wrong; I do not know. This, however, is in my opinion so important that I wish to put it on the record. The minister then said:
I am sure that it is the desire of the people of Canada that Canada should play its full part in creating and maintaining this overwhelming preponderance of moral, economic and military force and the necessary unity for its effective use.
There are two or three other excerpts that I would read if time permitted, but since there is some more material that I should like to put on the record, I must proceed. If Canadians are now awake and are idealistic they will insist that Canada's foreign policy be strengthened and that it be kept on a sound and strong basis. The minister's speech of April 29 would indicate, I think, that the government is beginning to realize that it has followed the wrong course for some time past. Not only the Secretary of State for External Affairs but the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) have lately made some very sound and sensible pronouncements with respect to communism and Canada's defences.
Above all, the Canadian government and the Canadian people must realize that, in order to make sure that we shall not lose our freedom, the total effort in defence of our way of life must be greater than the total efforts exerted by totalitarian forces in their attempt to destroy our freedom. Moreover, we should have more reason for enthusiasm in defending our freedoms than have the totali-tarians, whose sole purpose is to take our freedom away from us. However, owing to our indifference and, frankly, lack of common sense, that has not been the case in the past few years.
Let me give a few figures on the strength of the communist party as it was a year ago in a number of countries. My purpose is to indicate how negligible the communist mem-

Supply-External Affairs
bers are in the fifteen countries, and yet they either control or dominate these countries and are aiming at taking over the governments in all of them. The following figures are taken from a table which appeared in the World Report for April, 1947, giving the figures which were released in London, England, by the communist party:
Percentage
Communist of Total
Country	Party Membership	Popula- tionRussia 	6,000,900	3Bulgaria 	450,000	7Hungary 	650,000	7Czechoslovakia 	1,000 000	7Roumania 	500,000	3Poland 	600,000	3Yugoslavia 	100,000	1Italy 	2,200,000	5Greece 	400,000	5France 	1,300.000	3China 	2,000,000	[DOT]5Colombia 	10,000	*1Great Britain 	43,000	[DOT]1U.S.A	74,000	[DOT]05Canada 	23,000	[DOT]2Yet these negligible	percentages	are so
strong, this number of people so organized that not only have they taken over the first seven countries to which I referred], but they are taking over some of the others and would like to take over the rest.
I have given a list of fifteen countries, taken at random, and it shows that not only governments but every citizen must wake up to the reality. If we allow 23,000 communists in Canada to take over 12,000,000 people it is about time we did wake up and realize that we are not playing our full part. If we believe in democracy we should then try to convert our neighbours to the proper way of thinking also.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: What about the sympathizer?


Anthony Hlynka: I am sorry I have only a few minutes left. I do not know whether Mr. Speaker will allow me to complete my remarks, and I do not want to be thrown off the present line of thought.
I wish to put on the record certain information which I believe is extremely valuable. This is "How communists take over." This set-up appeared in the United States News-World Report of March 12, 1948. There are ten steps:
One. Build up "fifth column," winning members for party in labour unions, colleges, leftwing groups, government departments, the publishing field.
Two. Launch propaganda campaign favouring poor people, factory workers, minorities, Russia and opposing "big business," "reactionaries," "warmongers."
Three. Oet party members elected to key offices in labour unions and left-wing groups, when necessary, let opposing faction split off, label it right wing.
Four. Elect communists to parliament on platform of wide popular appeal, stressing higher wages, lower prices, social security, civil rights-how true that is-world peace.
Five. Form "popular front" in parliament through alliance with socialists, social democrats or other left wing parties willing to go along.
Six. Obtain key places in government, seeking to control first the police then public information, later army, foreign policy and finance.
Seven. Uncover "plots against the people" as a means to discredit opposing parties; use communist-controlled police to seize or threaten opposition leaders.
Eight. Carry out orders of high Soviet official sent in at psychological moment to direct strategy' and drive home idea communists are backed by Russian power.
Nine. Push for full control of government, using threats of general strike, civil war or "protection" by nearby Russian troops to paralyze our position.
Ten. Complete grip on government by purging anti-communist parties and office holders, taking over press and radio, and nationalizing industries.
I see that my time is nearly exhausted. I did want to make one or two other references, but I am afraid I shall not have time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Anthony Hlynka: Before I put on record two or three short quotations, to show that there is no doubt in the world as to the aims of the communists, I should like to pay tribute on the floor of this chamber to one of the greatest champions in the fight against communism in this country, which has been working hard, has never given up, and has shown courage in that work. I refer to that valiant fighter the Toronto Evening Telegram. I would couple with it the Windsor Star, a newspaper which joined the Telegram later in the fight, but which has given perhaps as good coverage of news which would enlighten the people as to what is going on. I know there are other newspapers doing the same work, some in the United States and some in the United Kingdom, but the list is too long to mention this evening. I did want to pay tribute to these two newspapers, however, which have shown such leadership, the thing this country needs. If we had more newspapers taking that attitude I am sure communism would not be as strong as it is today.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I mention James Burnham who has written several books. Apparently he is a clever young man with a great future. Quite recently he wrote a book
Supply-External Affairs

called "The Struggle for the World", and in one of the chapters, as printed in advance in the April 1947 American Mercury he says:
The ultimate goal of communist, and therefore of Soviet, policy is the conquest of the world. This is not a surprising or a fresh discovery. It is a secret only to the ignorant or the deceived.
Then Mr. Burnham quotes from the writings of Mr. Stalin and in particular the volume "Problems of Leninism", from which he quotes these words of Lenin:
We are living, not merely in one state, but in a system of states; and it is inconceivable that the Soviet republic should continue to exist iirterminably side by side with imperialist states. Ultimately, one or another must conquer. Pending this development, a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet republic and the bourgeois states must inevitably occur. (Yol. I, p. 56, quoting from Lenin, Works, Russian edition, vol. XVI, p. 102.)
Then I should like to quote a few words from the election speech of Stalin on February 10, 1946-and incidentally, "he was reelected" :
It would be incorrect to think that the war arose accidentally or as a result of the fault of some statesman. Although these faults did exist, the war arose in reality as the inevitable result of the development of the world economic and political forces on the basis of monopoly capitalism.
I see you are just about to rise, Mr. Speaker, so I thank the house for the kind attention I have been given.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member elected to this house to support the principles of the Regina manifesto and the national policies of the C.C.F., I should like to take this opportunity before proceeding with my remarks, to endorse the statement of the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) on Friday, March 5, appearing at page 1938 of Hansard, concerning the attitude of the C.C.F. toward the Labour-Progressive and other similar parties. I want to say also that, this endorsation is supported by the group directly responsible for my nomination and indirectly responsible for my election.
I listened with great interest to the address of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). At the time that speech was delivered my one regret was the few members in the house. So few were they that I believe the Ottawa Citizen was quite justified in headlining its article, "Many M.P.'s leave the house." I am glad to say, however, that in the news item the reporter of the Ottawa Citizen indicated that in proportion to its
numbers the C.C.F. group in this house had by far the greater representation present.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Does that include you?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In principle. The attitude of some hon. members on this important question, as indicated by their actions, does not reflect the attitude of the fathers, the mothers, the widows and the younger people of this country, who are vitally concerned about this important matter, and who are also vitally concerned about what is said and done in this parliament.
I am glad that in Canada we do not suffer from the war hysteria which seems to prevail on the other side of the line. Some English friends of mine who have recently come to the United States, and who have paid short visits to Ottawa, have expressed to me their relief on finding that the Canadian people are not being swayed by the tides of emotion experienced in some places in the United States. They find us more like the British and the people of the western democracies of Europe. My friends told me they were pleased to see that we at least were remaining cool, calm and collected and trying to view the situation objectively.
This is a very wide subject, and one must somewhat limit his remarks. However I wish to refer to some of the statements made by the minister when he made his address in th:s chamber. I quite agree with him when he said:
We know also that a line is being drawn which runs through the hearts of free men everywhere, and that on our side of that line are all those in every country who work and fight to preserve the freedom and dignity of the individual against reactionary dictatorship, whether communist or fascist. We know that there can be no neutrality in this conflict, which is as spiritual as it is political.
I am pleased indeed to see that the minister realizes the need for us to concern ourselves about both the fascist and communist forms of dictatorship, and again I want to ask: what group in this house or what party in this country has been conscious of that fact longer than the C.C.F. party? What group in this house, as a party, has expressed its opinion of the fascist destruction of the democratically elected government in Spain? What group expressed its attitude on the Ethiopian question, the nazi enslavement of the Austrian working class and the nazi conquest of Czechoslovakia? One group, one political party in this house, as a party-and I pay tribute to the individual members in other parties who expressed their opinions-

Supply-External Affairs
has recognized continuously the dangers, not only from the communist menace but from the fascist menace, the C.C.F. group.
Recent events in Czechoslovakia surely shocked us all; because I think there has been a sentimental attachment on the part of genuine Liberals-and I speak of liberals philosophically-to the rise and development of democracy in Czechoslovakia. We have in mind the great historic characters of Doctor Masaryk and his son and Doctor Benes, and their historic struggle in the centre of Europe for political democracy. I think there has been for many years great affection for the development of Czechoslovakian democracy in all western democratic countries.


Pierre Gauthier: The way they treated the Slovaks?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Even the best of countries have their dark spots.


Pierre Gauthier: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 'None of us are perfect.


Pierre Gauthier: We know
that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We all realize that, because of her geographical position, Czechoslovakia has been subject throughout the years to the east and west pull and subject to the terrific influence of the Soviet union. But we should not forget it has also been subject to the influence of western capitalist democracy.
I remember some years ago reading a book written by Mr. Lockhart who was at one time a member of the foreign affairs department in Great Britain, in which he makes a comment on how the Czechs enjoyed their parliamentary democracy, and how they enjoyed going through the forms of parliamentary government, little realizing that at that time, in the early twenties, the strings were pulled by the Bank of England.
At the same time I find many crocodile tears being shed in the western world over the fate of the Czechoslovakian democracy and over the tragic end of Mr. Masaryk, by persons, who throughout their whole careers, have stood opposed to everything for which those gentlemen stood.
I remember on one occasion when a fine gentleman who happened to be a tenant of ours died. This man was a Czech and a socialist. Because we happened to be the landlord, and the fact that this man was a bachelor, the police asked me to go with them to check his effects. I shall never forget the constable going through the books on this man's shelf. There was a row of books there by Mr. Masaryk, Senior-Professor Masaryk
as he was known at that time. The constable took them off the shelf and said, "I shall have to take these, Mr. Herridge; this is subversive literature". I said, "Why?" "Well," he said "you have only to read about these people to know that this is subversive." I said, "Don't be a silly ass; this man is a great statesman, a great democrat, a great intellectual". But no, he would not have anything to do with that, because he had been influenced by the writings and sayings of that time.
I should like to refer to another fact. Why during the pre-war period did the western capitalist democracies remain silent during the nazi and fascist conquests? Why did we not hear the moral indignation we hear expressed today? I think there is one reason, and that is that, so far as monopolistic capitalists are concerned, they know that nazi dictatorship and fascist dictatorship offer no hindrance to the development of their type of economy. They know that communism means the end of capitalism and their control.
I should like to comment briefly on one or two statements made by the minister. He went on to say:
Most of the troubles and fears of our day spring from this lack of trust, this absence of mutual toleration. The main although perhaps not the sole responsibility for this rests upon the aggressive and imperialistic policies of communism.
I agree with the minister's statement there, that perhaps not the sole responsibility for lack of trust rests upon the aggressive policies of communism. We must be objective in this question. If vre are to find a solution for it, we must not forget that we western democracies financed a war of intervention. Soviet Russia has never had troops on our soil. We financed a war of intervention during, shall I say, the formulative and liberal stages of the Soviet revolution.
That was done because certain monopoly capitalists were afraid of losing their investments in the Soviet union. No doubt we have some responsibility for the course of events in the Soviet union. That war of intervention, the attacks from without between it and the second world war, assisting by crystallizing the dictatorship in Russia; it assisted in my opinion, and in the opinion of many thinking people, to develop a police state, to develop the fear which develops a police state, to develop suspicion and to develop the misunderstandings which exist today.
Then again the minister went on to say:
No regime in Europe or anywhere else has: the right to assistance merely because it proclaims itself the only barrier against communism. It must do much more than that-
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. SINCLAIR:: That was before you fell from grace.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before I was saved
politically.


John Ewen Sinclair: Then you fell from grace a second time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I may not be a member, but I am an adherent in a nearby pew. The Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie addressed that convention and I shall never forget his ringing language. It was at the time of the depression and the Conservatives were in power in British Columbia. He said: "Ladies and gentlemen, the flaming sword of righteous Liberalism is about to descend on the decadent head of Toryism in the province of British Columbia." We have found out that it was a wooden sword because they have since been married.
Hon. members will remember the posters which were posted throughout this country by the Liberal party and which promised a new social order. What did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) have to say in connection with that new social order? He said:
In this new order, the rights of man will he determined, not by privilege derived from inheritance, position or possessions, but increasingly by men's own contribution through their own lives, to the common need and the common good.
The new social order. What is it? Increased profits, rising prices, lower taxes for big business and the Prince Edward Island trade union legislation. I am glad to see from press reports that that legislation is being rigorously opposed by the farmer organizations of Prince Edward Island and by the women's institutes. Taxation of co-operatives, no over-all security scheme; insufficient consideration for disabled pensioners and their dependents. Then it is illustrated in other little things such as the signing of trade agreements that take away the living of fruit growers in my own riding who have spent thirty to forty years in building up orchards without notice or consideration. That is what has happened because the policies of this country are carried out in relation to those of the United States. In the face of that record and that conception of a new social order, I am sure the people of Canada and a good many members of this House of Commons expect a more concrete definition of the government's new dynamic political gospel.
I want to say a few words about the foreign assistance act, commonly known as the Marshall plan. I am sure the majority of United1 States and Canadian people support this aid for European recovery. They are ready to support aid to destitute Europe on humanitarian grounds and I am sure they are
Supply-External Affairs

willing to deprive themselves of some things temporarily, provided that this aid is used in a proper way.
It is curious to note that some of the people in the United States and Canada who are loudest in the expression of their feelings for the suffering people of Europe, who are loudest in expressing their humanitarian objectives in this great plan, who pull out all the stops in ;hat connection, are those who have never taken any interest in health, education or social security at home. There are people behind the scenes who want to use this plan with political strings attached to it, who actually view this assistance as a means of bolstering up the present economic system.
There are two groups of people. There are those who are willing to render assistance as a moral duty. There are those who view this as an effort to stabilize the capitalist system in Europe, possibly to rebuild some of the cartels and help to stave off the evil day in the United States and this country.
In the Christian Science Monitor of March 6, 1948, there is an editorial which deals with the European recovery program and which contains a long list of the articles to be supplied. I find, on reading this article, that the wine interests of California are getting an allocation of 142 million gallons of wine annually to Europe from California; that is, to the wine-growing countries of Europe. Is that going to the poor people of Europe? Is that going from a humanitarian group? No. It is going purely in the interests of a certain group, for business reasons only.
I see in yesterday's Montreal Standard these headlines;
U.S. Cartelists Posted to ERP Jobs is Claim
The article reads in part:
Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney today charged that pre-war cartels are being restored in Europe and that prominent "American cartelists'' are being given high jobs in the European recovery administration.
It goes on with more detailed objections on those grounds. I believe the Canadian people are behind this plan. I think it is up to this government to define clearly to the people of Canada what their position is in relation to this plan and what our contributions and our aid are to be used for, and on what terms. I think the people of this country want to see these goods sent, as I said before, and are willing to suffer some temporary inconvenience, provided that these goods are used to help the people of Europe without outside political meddling.
I now want to deal just with another statement made by the minister, as reported at page 3449 of Hansard'.
The burden of maintaining peace, however, will not be easy. We must constantly remem-

ber that the union of the free world which is now "painfully struggling to be born" will possess overwhelming strength only if it is baked on moral as well as material force; if its citizens are bound together not merely by a hatred of communism but by their love of free democracy and their determination to make it work for the promotion of welfare and the preservation of peace.
I agree with the sentiments the minister expressed, but I say now without any hesitation that the union of the new world will not be based on moral force if Wall Street continues to dominate the economic and political fields. There is a great deal of serious consideration of the fact in Canada that we are to some extent becoming a satellite of the United States. They have a great part of our iron resources. Look at their investments in oil and in the lumber industry. Look all around us. Our ownership of natural resources is disappearing. That is a situation which has been dealt with by previous speakers on other occasions. Previous speakers have dealt with the menace of international finance. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, as reported at page 3458 of Hansard:
The C.C.F. believes that Canada should resist any attempt by the forces of communism or those of monopoly capitalism, or fascism, to dominate the world. For our own part we shall continue to fight against totalitarianism and dictatorship of every kind, whether they come from the so-called communist left or from the fascist or capitalist right.
I agree with that statement.
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), when he stated, as reported at page 3461 of Hansard:
This is what we in this group have often referred to as world or international finance. It is a tyrannical force just as dangerous and as anti-social as communism.
Today we face a dynamic political communism and the menace of monopoly capitalism and international finance. My point of view and the point of view of many people in this country is that they present an equal hazard to the development of democratic freedom and economic justice.
Abraham Lincoln, with his remarkable foresight, sensed the beginnings of this money power. In a grave warning to the people of the United States he said he feared the financial power might grow and swell and pyramid until it and not the people owned the American earth and the American government.
In 1888 Grover Cleveland declared in a message to congress:
Corporations which should be carefully restrained, creatures of the law and servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's master.

Supply-External Affairs
In 1913 President Wilson declared:
The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalist manufacturers of the United States.
In 1938 President Roosevelt declared in a message to congress:
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.
In 1935 the Prime Minister uttered a statement in similar vein. I do not intend to criticize all capitalists. I am criticizing that centralization of finance and monopoly capitalism which, in a crisis which threatens its existence will support fascism. There is some difference between the capitalist who invests his money in the country-who invests in an irrigation scheme, in the development of natural resources, hydro electric, public utilities and so on-and the one who invests his money outside it. He is a different type of man from the capitalist who is searching around- the world for foreign investments. The capitalist who invests his money in Canada is a different type of man from the one who invests his money, for instance, in a street railway in Madrid. The place of investment conditions their outlook. These people are internationalists just in the same sense that communism is international. Their loyalty is not to their country. Their loyalty is not to the nation of which they are citizens. You know the scriptural text to the effect that wherever your treasure is, there will your heart be also. These men who have investments around the world are internationalists. Because of those investments, their outlook is such that their first loyalty is not to the country in which they reside. That is why many of us consider that we must face this question which is confronting us squarely, the two perils -international communism on the one hand and international finance on the other.
I am not given to quoting at length, but there is a crisis within democracy, and I am sure that all of us, to whatever party we belong, are concerned about the preservation of it. Many of the statements made by the members I think show a lack of thought in this connection, and a lack of realization that we are living in a changing world, not only abroad but at home. I want to quote somewhat at length in order to put on record what I consider to be one of the most thoughtful considerations with regard to this threat which exists within democracy itself. This booklet I have in my hand is entitled "The Coracle". It is the official organ of the Iona community. The article to which I refer is written by Sir
George MacLeod, a personal friend of mine whom I have known for many years. This is what he has to say under the heading:
How to Preserve Democracy
I intend to read quickly because I should like to get this on the record for the information of the house. I continue:
How many ordinary folk grasp the real threat that faces "western democracy"-not from Russia but within its own consistency?
How many have faced the one condition on which it can continue to work? It is a byword that too many of our youth today are not concerned with politics. Modern youth are apt to say, "What is the use? We cannot affect the situation." Do we-or do they, for that matter -appreciate how right they may be, unless one condition is conceded?
Theoretically, western democracy is in the grayest danger of not being able to function. It is perhaps the strongest card in the communist's hand. Nor is it difficult to explain.
Parliamentary democracy, as we know it, only worked really well in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The condition of its survival is a common agreement about economic principles, e.g., in the nineteenth century, when there was common agreement about the capitalist way of life, it was a workable arrangement that His Majesty's government should proceed in a conservative way and His Majesty's opposition should proceed in a radical way: or vice versa. "Five years in and five years out" meant that a healthy balance w'as kept between the more cautious over against the bolder road to progress: as parliamentary majorities changed hands. But the moment the issue ceases to be the pace at which we move and becomes a primary difference about the way of moving, our whole method is in danger. The movement, that is. when the difference between the two main parties is not political but economic: when what is at variance is the nature of the society we seek to build and not merely the expedient pace for building-parliamentary government is in jeopardy.
If ever a clearly capitalist party faces a clearly socialist party-then a general election every five years becomes a menace. For it is obvious that you cannot nationalize everything for five years and denationalize everything for the next five years, and so on, without resulting chaos. This is precisely what the communist and the fascist say: and men are foolish to disregard their thesis. It is because of this insight you get the extreme right and the extreme left pleading for "one party government". Take control, each says, and ensure that the other side never gets back. The opposition, in this view, ceases to be "His Majesty's opposition" and becomes His Majesty's enemy, fit for the shadows of prison rather than for a shadow cabinet. Only so, they say, can any country get on at all.
There is only one escape in our own country fro-m a similar decline in genuine party government. The one condition to assure a new lease of life for "government by alternating parties" is a mutual acceptance of a new economic basis. And it is the very nature of our contemporary world that demands w-hat we may call a socialized rather than an uncontrolled monopoly basis.
Supply-External Affairs

Once there is general agreement that the priorities of production are the concern of all and not a private playground then ve can afford a continuing argument about the pace of achievement. Those of "conservative" mind saying do not go too fast, those of a "radical" mind saying we must go faster: but both sides admitting the necessity, in our contemporary world, of an agreed over-riding thesis. Granted that, parliamentary government becomes realistic again and we can afford the dangers of universal suffrage and an alternating pace of achievement every five years.
In the issue of democracy then, our fate is that we must all generally agree about an overriding social responsibility: only so can we possibly integrate into the world economy to which we now belong.
Then in conclusion:
It is in this sense that it is a complete confusion to maintain that the issue is between "freedom" and "planning". Unless we generally accept "planning"-and confine the argument to the subsidiary issues of its pace-we will find ourselves bereft both of freedom of speech and freedom of association. Unless -we generally accept "planning"-and find a new area for the display of personal initiative-our parliamentary democracy will soon fail to function.
That does not necessarily mean a completely socialized state, Mr. Speaker, but it does mean that economic decisions concerning a large section cannot be left to a few men having greater power than the many. The enterprises of the state, whether publicly, cooperatively or privately owned, must be co-ordinated and operated to the public good.
I believe in the hope of world democracy. I believe that this hope can be realized for Canadians and for all people in our time, but I see this hope endangered by present trends. Many fear war; many expect depression; some await the destruction of the united nations. To those who admit the truth of all this and say, "This is a time for waiting," I reply, "We cannot wait." The welfare of Canadians and the welfare of the world demand that we act now.
Our industrial workers fear the insecurity of present employment; as their real wages fall with rising prices they suffer steadily declining standards of living. Our farmers fear that their period of prosperity is coming to an end. Our businessmen fear the instability of their markets. In the lifetime of my generation we have witnessed two world wars and two major depressions. But to accept the inevitability of war and depression is, to me, to deny democracy. The idea that personal or national insecurity is a necessary part of modern life, is to me, absolutely outrageous.
I wish to say briefly that I support the foreign policy statement issued on April 16 by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federa-

tion. My time does not permit me to go into or to explain this at any length.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: must remind the hon. member that his time is exhausted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I have a few moments?


John Ewen Sinclair: This is an auspicious occasion, the prodigal's return.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member is very much interested in our domestic affairs.
This statement deals both with the united nations and continued support of the united nations and support for the European recovery program but insists on no meddling in domestic politics, and I support these views. I believe that the British commonwealth of nations can assume the moral leadership of the world, and in association with the other democracies act as the balance wheel in international affairs.
I might say that in my opinion the British commonwealth of nations, in association with the other western democracies, can play a tremendous role today in giving moral leadership to the world. I think there is no question about that. We are witnessing the collapse of a financial system. I am one who personally believes that we soon have to revolt against the tyranny of gold. I think we of the British commonwealth of nations, in association with the other western democracies, must combine and devise a method of social credit in combination with democratic planning if we are to defeat, not only the onslaught of communism but the threat presented by monopoly capitalism.
As to our domestic policy, I propose the national program of the C.C.F. as a rational program drawn up and designed with an understanding of the past, the present and the future, a full understanding of Canadian conditions and Canadian psychology. I should like to go on at some length on that aspect of this situation, but my time will not permit.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, our people want leadership. The present sense of insecurity is having a damaging effect on personal and national effort. With planned objectives and purposes, I am sure the Canadian people will conscript themselves in the cause of peace. I believe that on this approach and on this program the future of our land depends.


Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska):: Since the end of the war, no debate has retained the attention of the Canadian citizens more than this one concerning our situation relating to external affairs. Any policy

Supply-External Affairs
elaborated on this matter will have far-reaching effects on the economic and physical health of our nation.
As a representative of a constituency composed of peaceful farmers and labourers deeply attached to their faith and their traditions, and as a member of the standing committee on external affairs, I feel duty bound to put on the record a few observations on that vital subject.
We are all aware that the present world is shared by two contradictory ideologies: firstly, the atheistic and totalitarian materialism, known as communism; secondly, the governments of the nations that believe in God and in the freedom of the individual, however they may be affected by a communistic infiltration, till now known as democracies.
It is quite abundantly proven today that the communist governments are dictatorships, in which the most oppressive powers are vested, and the leaders of which are tyrants who treat the individuals as the property of the state. Such a dictatorial system is in force, not only in Russia, but also in the surrounding countries which are now deprived of their most cherished liberties. It is well known, too, that an iron curtain is now separating the communist area from western Europe and the American continent. And this iron curtain has been placed there as a demarcation line, not by the consent or by the suggestion of any democratic nations, but entirely and exclusively by a totalitarian government, so generously assisted by western allied people during the war and without any due consideration for the welfare and the freedom of its subjects. This impassable barrier is erected by the communists so as to control every citizen behind it and to make them slaves of the state. Strategic posts are held by strong believers in the cause of universal communistic revolution. This barrier is disposed in such a way that it can be opened only on one side, and it is not on the side of the western bloc.
Communists only are permitted to come into our free world. The entry is forbidden to an international commission to go freely, visit these countries, inquire into their military forces and armaments and study the way of living of the different classes of their people. Such is the isolated oamp of the communist peoples. Even the ambassadors and charges d'affaires of democratic countries are held under polite supervision by the communist governments. What then is the use of having official representatives in such countries? I do
not see what benefit could result from maintaining costly representation near governments which offer no collaboration at all.
On the other hand, certain communist officials coming from abroad have fomented and encouraged communist propaganda and espionage in many American countries, and particularly in Canada. We desire peace and wish to avoid any cause of trouble and war. Since the ideals of the eastern and the western bloc are irreconcilable, why not adopt the policy of living peacefully at home, economically and politically? But this does not mean that we should isolate ourselves from the other democratic countries on this side of the iron curtain.
On the contrary, our external relations with the non-communist democracies should be developed and amplified as much as possible. For the time being, we have to give the fullest co-operation to these countries in order to stabilize their economy, as wTell as our own, and plan with them the best schemes by which to secure peace and prosperity in our western hemisphere.
Our free countries constitute a very large world and can live in freedom and prosperity by themselves. Let the communists try to achieve the same ideal in their so-called democratic closed countries. If we could be of any assistance to the people under the control of the Kremlin, perhaps we would be justified in trying to maintain our representation over there. But as long as it is impossible to collaborate and to have access to those suffering people, it seems to me that it is dangerous to expose our citizens to communist propaganda any longer, without having the least chance of demonstrating the principles of real democratic freedom among the people under the communist domination. The time has come, I hope, for all the non-communist countries efficiently to protect and safeguard their democratic and Christian philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the right, and is obliged, to devote herself to the conservation of her political and national health as much as any individual is naturally inclined to safeguard his own life. What is the foundation of our national life? Our constitution, which guarantees to each government in this country, in its own respective jurisdiction, freedom of faith, language and speech, according to the rules established by the law of the land; freedom of union for workers; freedom of property and freedom for the people to elect representatives of their own choice. But this freedom must be exercised, having regard to the obligation of the citizen to respect the proper authorities, to respect the right of property, and the social order as it exists under our Christian democratic political system.
Supply-External Affairs

Our national life is composed also of rights and obligations to which we are deeply attached and which we are duty bound to preserve.
Any individual knows that if he swallows poison he may die. Is it not crystal clear that if democratic nations are contaminated by the poison of communistic doctrine they will lose their freedom of creed, thought, and speech in a short period of years?
The enemy now menacing our democratic system is twofold: one, external, commonly called the Moscow bear; the other internal, which I may call a hypocritical and dangerous adder. The Moscow bear has shown its menacing attitude on many occasions in the last three years. It has done all it could to achieve its aim and ruin the free action of our nations.
Moreover, in international assemblies, the communist representatives endeavoured to introduce ideas which could facilitate their fight against us. The veto was resorted to whenever the democracies wished to have a right granted. No co-operation is possible between the advocates of liberty and those who try to destroy it. The Moscow bear is menacing, but the adder which creeps among us constitutes the immediate danger which we face!
This danger arises from many sources; first, the representatives who establish spying centres; second, communist groups in certain labour unions or other associations which are sometimes organized under so-called philanthropic, patriotic and charitable groups; third, the Labour-Progressive party, of which Tim Buck is the active leader; and lastly, all those who, intentionally or not, talk and act against the authority and the social order which we enjoy.
This is Canada's perilous position at this time; our country is menaced from outside and, soon, may be undermined from within. Having suffered two wars, it now deserves a fair, stable and durable peace. A conflict now would crush it between the two blocs of which it is the geographical link. Discovered by a Christian believer who placed her under the protection of the cross, Canada must pursue her course in order and in peace under the watchful eye of God. But to attain our goal, must we not disperse both the exterior and the interior threats? Why allow foreign powers, desirous of destroying our democratic system, to instal observation posts

in our country which might serve as a hotbed of intrigue and revolution?
When a neighbour refuses to receive us we do not invite him into our homes. Why maintain relations which might well be dangerous? Has the hour not come when we should each remain at home? Would it not be the best way to avoid war? When one is convinced of the bad feelings of an adversary it is better to avoid meeting him. It seems to me that if the communists guard their territory with guns the least we can do is to bar their entry, official or otherwise, into our country.
Once the doors of democratic countries have been closed to these official or non-official agents of communism, it will be easier to establish order at home. To do this we need the loyal and complete co-operation of all powers, federal, provincial and municipal, and of the truly democratic governments. Any government or party which uses communism as an electoral platform commits a criminal offence against the life of the nation. In sane co-operation we shall find the method of adopting social laws whose justice will heal the wounds which now afflict us.
It is not war, which will revive in the hearts of men the virtues of faith, hope and charity. It is not war, which in fact destroys more innocent people than criminals, that will eradicate from the hearts of men the roots of communistic hatred; and it is not on war, born of hatred, that charity thrives in this world. Only by keeping away the agents of communistic propaganda and establishing in our country a reign of social justice shall we consolidate a nation guided by charity, a nation from which hatred and communism will have been banished.
Should we, then, give a free hand to those within our country who endeavour to undermine our social order? Our criminal code provides severe sanctions for offences against property and morality. A robber is liable to imprisonment. All the more should people who attack not only our individual liberty but the basis of all our liberties not remain unpunished in the name of a false interpretation of freedom. Groups organized against the security of the state should be barred from society. Though it is impossible to read people's minds, we can judge them by their actions, their writings, their speeches; and we have sufficient evidence of these in communistic groups to prove their delinquency. It is the duty of every attorney general in every province of this country to prosecute them under the criminal code; and if the provisions of the code are not adequate, amend-

Supply-External Affairs
ments should be introduced to guarantee the safety of our nation. Moreover, even if it is not a radical means of suppressing communism, it is our duty to outlaw communistic organizations. Every communistic movement is clearly directed against the security of the state, and therefore is not entitled to be recognized as a political party. Otherwise we would be going against our natural instinct of preservation which is inherent to all societies and individuals.
In my humble opinion, it is by preventing every kind of communistic infiltration from the outside, by protecting ourselves against communism on the inside and by maintaining in Canada social order and justice that we shall contribute all the more to universal peace. In this way democracies will develop in an era of peace and order without having to resort to war, unless they are attacked. As for the totalitarian, atheistic system, it will crumble under its own weight, because it is based solely on hatred, injustice, theft and contempt for international and natural laws. The day will come when pressures are castigated and an era of freedom will be revived in the world. The doors of the communistic area will then be opened, and all the nations will live peacefully and good will shall cover the whole world.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, what I shall have to say on this occasion may sound a little idealistic and visionary after the more lusty speeches we have heard on this subject during the last few days. However I believe it is generally accepted that this debate has shown more ground of agreement on the part of those who have spoken than any previous debate on foreign policy, at least in my memory.
The chief subject on which I wish to speak this evening is what is known as the united nations educational, scientific and cultural organization. I want to refer to this for a few moments because of the uncertainty which seems to exist in the minds of the Canadian people, particularly those interested in promoting an organization of this kind, as to the intentions of the government in this regard. I would refer the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) to certain questions and answers as they appear at page 850 of Hansard for February 4, 1948. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) had placed on the order paper some questions dealing with UNESCO. The first question was:
1.	Has the Canadian government made any progress since last session in. the matter of setting up a national commission of UNESCO?
Then other questions followed. The reply was:
1. No. It has been decided not to proceed at the present time with the establishment of a national commission for UNESCO.
If the right hon. gentleman has made any further announcement since that time, contrary to this reply, at the moment I am not aware of it, so I shall have to accept this statement as being the reply of the government. I believe it is not more than eighteen months ago that the same minister introduced in this house a resolution dealing with this organization, and at that time he asked hon. members to endorse Canada's membership in UNESCO. If there has been a major change of policy on the part of the government in relation to this organization, which to my mind is very important, then I believe this house should have the advantage of the inside story. We should know why there has been a major change of policy and what the intentions of the government are for the future.
To my mind this is a very important organization because, in spite of all the things we say about the balance of power, world politics, military alliances and so on, we always have to come back to the realization that thought precedes action. If it is the wish of the peoples of the world to have universal peace, then of course we shall not have to invest billions of dollars in armaments, national defence, military alliances and things of that sort. If it were possible to get behind the iron curtain which exists in the minds of the people on the question of war, and to appeal to their better nature-because they have it-then we might be able to bypass a great deal of the heart rending that has taken place in the last two years.
I wonder if the government has changed its policy in this regard on account of certain statements made by persons in this country who have attacked UNESCO and have, in effect, stated that it was a communist front and that the members of that organization existed in order to assist the imperialist plans of Russia, and things of that sort.
I hold in my hand a copy of a speech delivered on April 8 of this year at a Rotary club meeting in Hull by a gentleman named Ernest Dufour. He is here indicated to be chairman of the international service committee of the Rotary club of Hull. On that occasion he made this statement, a most disturbing one if it carries any weight with the government:
It was a sad day for me however, when as early as in 1946 only a few months after the birth of UNESCO I read1, firstly in the
Supply-External Affairs

newspapers and then in the Rotarian that Rotary international was entirely and completely behind UNESCO and were ^urging Rotary clubs everywhere to program UNESCO meetings to familiarize members with this important agency.
Then he went on to explain why it was a sad day for him when he found that Rotary international, of which, of course, he is a member, has taken it upon itself to familiarize its members and the public with the functions and objectives of the organization known as UNESCO.
Farther on in his speech he makes certain attacks upon the personnel of the executive of that body and, as a matter of fact, even attacks the secretary-general of the united nations, using this kind of language:
Lie has proved himself a reliable friend of the Stalin regime for nearly a quarter of a century.
In other words, part of his speech was to the effect that he deplored the activities of Rotary international in this country in the role it has been playing since the creation of UNESCO, in promoting its objectives and familiarizing its membership and the public with its objectives and with its program.
I am in no position to know whether the charges made by Mr. Dufour are based upon fact, or whether they are based upon his own personal opinion or perhaps his own personal prejudice. But I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs should at the earliest opportunity inform the house and nation as to how much truth, if any, there is in the charges made by this gentleman; and if the government has changed its position on the setting up of the Canadian commission for UNESCO, or if it has not changed its opinion, then of course the country should be made aware of it.
It is set out in article V of the UNESCO organization, under the title "composition"; that is, what it shall be composed of:
The conference shall consist of the representatives of the members of the organization. The government of each member state shall appoint not more than five representatives who shall be selected in agreement with the national co-operating body or bodies or national commission.	___
In other words, Canada's membership in the organization is based upon the setting up of what is termed a national commission of not more than five representatives. Naturally, since this organization deals chiefly with the dissemination of education in all its forms, the organizations in this country which have to do with education, such as the Canadian teachers' federation, the various teachers organizations in the provinces,

the Canada and Newfoundland educational association, and others, have shown extreme interest in this project and, as a matter of fact, have made representations to the minister to be represented on this commission.
Apparently, if the reply of the minister of Februarjr 4 is to be taken as final, the government has decided to drop the whole project and to do nothing more about it. If that is government policy, it appears to emphasize and to underscore the attacks made upon this organization by such gentlemen as Mr. Dufour, who makes an attempt-based upon what knowledge, I do not know-to throw suspicion and a certain amount of cynicism into the functions of this organization in order to turn the people of Canada against it.
Either there is something to the charge made by Mr. Dufour and others, or there is nothing to it. And I say the minister owes it to the house and the country to set the matter straight at the earliest possible opportunity, so that the co-operating body of educationists in this country, who have shown a great interest in this project and have shown their readiness to co-operate with the government, will know what the position is.
I believe it is only fair that some of the background of this organization should be given at this time, in order that we may judge for ourselves whether it is likely to be a subversive organization or one which may contribute something toward world peace and understanding.
Article I of the constitution of this organization is headed by the word "Purposes," and two chief purposes are set out, as follows:
1.	To develop and maintain mutual understanding and appreciation of the life and culture, the arts, the humanities and the sciences of the peoples of the world, as a basis for effective international organization and world peace.
2.	To co-operate in extending and in making available to all peoples for the service of common human needs the world's full body of knowledge and culture, and in assuring its contribution to the economic stability, political security, and general well-being of the peoples of the world.
If these two objectives were carried into effect; or, in other words, if this organization were successful in attaining these two objectives, then it would be doing something which at least ninety per cent of the members of the House of Commons have been trying to impress upon the government in the last few days.
It appears to me that the objectives of this organization are very worthy, and that if we are to play any part in co-operating with other nations in the organization, then it is about

Supply-External Affairs
time we made up our minds whether we are to be in it or out of it. Perhaps I should also say that UNESCO is not a new idea which arose after the close of the second world war, as seems to be the impression of some people who speak about it. As a matter of fact, as far back as the peace conference in 1919 one of the French statesmen, named Leon Bourgeois, brought up the idea of what he called intellectual co-operation, and suggested that an auxiliary organization be set up in order to bring together the intellectual co-operation of the various nations of the world.
Very little attention -was paid to his suggestion at the time. However, again in 1921 he brought the idea before the assembly of the league of nations at Geneva in September of that year, and was successful in having a resolution passed authorizing the council to set up a committee to deal with international questions regarding intellectual co-operation.
It might be valuable at this time to see what the objectives of this organization were to be, because they happen to be very much in line with those I have quoted from the constitution of UNESCO. These were later stated by the French delegation at San Francisco as follows:
1.	That peace among nations must be founded on comprehension and mutual understanding.
2.	That the united nations has a duty to see that cultures are made accessible to all men.
3.	That it is the duty of the united nations to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of knowledge about national, cultural and educational activities.
With a set-up of that sort, it would appear to me that this organization is a sincere attempt on the part of the membership of the united nations to exchange ideas on general education, science and culture among all the member nations. It does appear a little strange that anyone should consider it as being a subversive or communist front, particularly when we find that the Soviet union is about the only country not a member of UNESCO. I believe there is some confusion and the minister should set the matter straight.
What are some of the things that this organization could do? When I took part in the debate on the resolution when this was introduced in the house I stated that one of the things upon which Canada should insist in the united nations was the right of UNESCO or some similar organization to present a minimum program for peace in every nation of the world. There is much talk about the iron curtain, but sometimes I wonder whether we are taking full advantage of the facilities that we have to disseminate information across the borders of all countries in the world.
I believe that if the people of these nations were made aware of the full consequences and futility of war there are few dictators or tyrants who would set out to conquer the world. The people of the nations concerned would rise up in arms and would stop a war before it ever had a chance to start.
I have in my hand a sheet which was published, I believe, in 1945, toward the end of the war, entitled "World or War." This sets out certain information which I believe should be made available to every school child in every country of the world. This information would give the people some slight understanding of what is actually involved in war. We have the tendency, as soon as war is over, to talk about it as a matter of academic interest, but these are some figures of the casualties on the allied side alone up to May 31, 1945:
Killed
or
missing	Wounded
British	commonwealth	....	434.885	468,388United	States	
296,352	651,168Soviet	Russia	12,000,000	to	15,000,000	civilian
and red army personnel
That is only one side of the picture. If we continued the figures to the other side where the destruction of property and loss of life was probably greater it might cause the people of the world to pause and think before they started on another adventure. Let us look at the material side. It is impossible to estimate what destruction was actually caused by bombs and artillery bombardments and so on, but in round dollars they give the cost to Canada up to the end1 of March, 1945, as $15,000 million.
Fifteen billion dollars is so much money that the average person like myself who has never seen $1,000 at one time can hardly visualize it. But they put it in terms of what that money could buy. We are told here that $15,000 million would provide a house for every second family in Canada worth $8,000 each. It would provide repairs for all the other houses to an amount of $210 each. It would supply a car, a refrigerator, a washing machine, a radio, a vacuum cleaner, a sewing machine, a cooking stove and $200 worth of new furniture for every family in this country. Of course these are based on 1945 prices and they would be a little optimistic for 1948.
That gives us a slight conception of what is involved in terms of material costs. The loss of the finest of the young men of this and other countries is incalculable. That is something which cannot be put in figures of any kind. These are the facts which should be made known, particularly to nations which have been known to go out adventuring or invading or taking aggressive action against
Supply-External Affairs

other nations. It would set out before them what they are facing. Of course the situation in another war might be more terrible than what we have passed through before.
There is, of course, the stumbling block which we come up against in every debate of this kind. People ask how we are to get that kind of information or that kind of program before the people of Soviet Russia. We are told that we are not permitted to go freely into that country and disseminate literature such as UNESCO could supply. When we come to that point there is almost a tendency to throw up our hands in despair and say, "There are two worlds; we are the one world and Soviet Russia is the other". It is considered that an impasse has been reached and that nothing can be done. Some of the speeches during this debate reflected such a tone of gloom that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) aptly called it a council of despair. I hope that this parliament can do something better than simply ration out despair to the Canadian people on this subject.
In my opinion there is a bright side to this question; there is a ray of hope. I think those who have studied the political history of Europe will agree with the statement which I am going to make but which may perhaps sound a little unusual or hard to believe. It is my view that there will be a political revolution in Soviet Russia in our lifetime. I say that, not because of any wishful thinking, but because I think it is in line with the development of that country and all other countries of a similar nature.
We accept Great Britain as being the cradle of democracy, as having long democratic traditions, and we are apt to forget that there was a time when they had to fight, not one political revolution but several. Perhaps the main difference between the development of Soviet Russia and Great Britain lies in the fact that Great Britain had a peaceful industrial revolution, sometimes called the bloodless revolution. Politically they developed through several stages of violence.
On the other hand, in my opinion the much talked of October revolution in Soviet Russia was not actually a political revolution. It had some political implications, but fundamentally it was an industrial revolution. It was the introduction into a backward and semi-feudal state of a new way of doing things. Because of the time at which it occurred, because of the terrific opposition to change, because of the war conditions in the country, it took on the character of a bloody revolution of carnage, looting and killing which went beyond

anything that we had seen so far in a revolution. I believe that the real political revolution in Soviet Russia is still to come.
When we speak of Russia or any other country we sometimes forget that we cannot throw all the people of a nation into one basket and say, "This is Russia" or "This is some other country." In my opinion there is a great difference of opinion among the people of all countries when you speak politically.
I refuse to accept the fact that when we speak of Russia we automatically speak of communism. There is a great difference between communism and Russia as a state. We must remember that there are millions of people-perhaps a large majority; it is hard to say how many-who are opposed to the system which they have or to a political system such as communism, who have democracy in their hearts and who wish to win freedom. In due time, with the right kind of encouragement and with the faith that the other nations of the world are with them and not against them, there will come a day when they will break the chains which hold them and will establish a democratic system in several stages in that country. It will not all be done at once.
Those who read history will remember that one of the early revolutions in Great Britain was that of a gentleman by the name of Wat Tyler. Of course there are many romantic stories told about the way in which Wat Tyler was killed and how King Richard offered to lead the revolution in his place. But behind the scenes the actual fact was that Tyler, as a type, was one of those whose idea of revolution was destruction, looting and killing. For several days the mob led by Tyler looted and pillaged in London. Then, of course, there came other types of revolutionists. We had men like Simon de Montfort. We had Hampden, Cromwell, Wilberforce, Wilkes and so on, each man in his way a revolutionist.
But as time went on, each one had a little more to contribute than he destroyed. I think if we draw a parallel of that kind with the Soviet union, we shall find that there are Ilampdens, Cromwells, Wilkes'es and de Mont-forts in Russia. At the present time we do not hear about them, but I believe that in due time their public opinion and various political mechanisms will slowly develop from a dictatorship, through representative government, and later on toward responsible government. I think we in what we call the western democracies should be doing everything possible to encourage those people rather than to throw them all into the same

Supply-External Affairs
basket as communists and say we will have nothing to do with Russia. If we take that attitude, then what we are doing is discouraging the very progressive and democratic forces which we should be encouraging, and throwing them into the same category as those who support dictatorship. By so doing, in the end we may be actually defeating our own purposes.
There is much that can be said about the possibilities. I have before me a book written by Professor D. Doroshenko, which is edited by Professor G. W. Simpson of the University of Saskatchewan, who also writes the introduction. Those who read this book, if they turn to chapter IV in which are discussed political conditions in the Kievan state, which goes back about nine hundred years, will find this significant sentence:
The political organization of the state was based on two principles:	the power of the
prince and the opinion of the population represented in the viche. a popular assembly akin to the Anglo-Saxon "Folk moot".
That is nine hundred years ago. Yet it is not greatly different from the type of development we saw in Great Britain, in which there was a sort of dual responsibility, the monarch representing the nation at all times regardless of who else is in power, and the popular assembly, or the people themselves expressing their opinions through a parliament of the people. Nine hundred years ago, in other words, the people of the Ukraine had already started on the rudiments of democracy. They have had, of course, an extremely rough time of it, having been invaded first from one section and then from another. They have lost their sovereignty several times and are now incorporated in greater Russia. I believe that is one part of the Soviet union where the real spirit of democracy has never died. Those people are still there. They are dreaming their dreams. They are waiting for the time when, with the proper encouragement and the sympathy of the western democracies, they will rise up again and will establish true democracy in that country.
I believe that if we can approach the problem from that angle it will bring the best results. I know it is not an easy angle from which to approach it; it is far easier to condemn a whole nation and say they are a bunch of communists or that they are a bunch of imperialists, that we must oppose them and see that they do not get anywhere. But I do not believe that is the kind of approach which will bring the best.'results. I think we shall have to try, if we cannot get through the iron curtain, at least to see through it, by what we can get from history and experience,
and encourage the democratic and freedom-loving forces, which I am certain are in that country in large numbers waiting for the opportunity to come upon common ground with the western democracies. Then it will be possible to have a real united nations, where there will be a real desire for co-operation and where there will be a chance for world peace. I believe that if that attitude were taken we might surprise ourselves as to how far we might go and how much we can accomplish.
Just before taking my seat, I wish to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) the other day, in which he took exception to some of the statements made by my leader. He started out by admiring my leader and his way of speaking; and in that, of course, we are on common ground. But as his speech wore on, he became a little bit critical and a little less complimentary. I have often listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata in his delightful speeches and have always enjoyed them. It occurred to me that this is one time when he could be of real service to the country, because he has some really peculiar and singular talents which could be used to great advantage. I believe it would be a wise move on the part of this government to appoint the hon. member for Temiscouata as ambassador to Moscow. He spoke of conciliation; and I have no doubt that, with his charming approach and his infallible and almost indestructible diplomacy, even Joe Stalin could not withstand him for long. I would also nominate as his understudy and chief aide-de-camp, and as chief liaison officer between the fellow travellers and the embassy, the charming and genial member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson).


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Thank
you very much.


Mr. L. R. BEAUDOIN (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: It is not without apprehension, Mr. Speaker, that I take part in this important debate. However I will take the risk, if I may, of making a few observations.
First, I join with others, both within and outside parliament, in congratulating the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) upon his detailed, most comprehensive and frank statement. It is indeed an historic pronouncement.
In directing Canada's affairs, this government and this parliament have the one objective in view: peace on earth for humanity. Ever since the end of hostilities, Canada has been alert in pursuing its course toward peace. Canada carried into the establishment of peace
Supply-External Affairs

and security the spirit of unselfishness and co-operation by which its magnificent war record was characterized.
It is well recognized that Canada discharges its obligations; and, because it does so, it is not seeking compliments. It merely hopes that other nations will follow its example and leadership and do likewise. Of course Canada aims at reaping some advantages in return: peace, security and freedom. Those who are most reluctant, or refuse, to see obligations where they lie-the more onerous the obligations, the more opposed they become-are often those who appear to long the most for the advantages. The paradox in this is that sections of the general public are often led astray as to where their true friends are. It is much easier, more popular perhaps, I admit, to join the camp of people who are always endeavouring to minimize obligations or even to by-pass them, although in their conscience they know they exist.
At this juncture, we are, I think, particularly privileged in having at the head of our Department of External Affairs a man who sets out the position with courage and blunt frankness. The people of Canada know now the exact score. In order to avoid what may become inevitable, that is another war, we must take certain steps which consist, in the main, in joining blocs of free nations, pooling our resources and providing assistance in material, money and men, if required.
As a matter of fact, no obligations emanating from our joining the free nations of the world in a self-defence scheme, under articles 51 and 52 of the charter, can be greater than those which come within the scope of chapter VII, article 42 and others of the united nations charter, which was approved unanimously by this parliament after a full debate in October,
1945.
On March 17, 1948, a fifty-year treaty of economic and social collaboration and collective military aid, was signed in Brussels, by Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. It is a collective security treaty against aggression. The short speeches that were made after the signing of the treaty by the representatives of the countries concerned indicate the compelling motives behind it. Mr. Spaak of Belgium said:
We do not intend to interfere in the internal affairs of anyone, but demand of all others the same abstention. . . By pooling our resources and our potential, we shall be the equals of the greatest powers in the world.
Among other things, Mr. Bidault of France declared:
On the road from Paris to Brussels, there is hardly a town or village whose name is not

also that of a battle. This tragedy has lasted long enough. We are here to put an end to it, with all the means in our power-means which we will employ to the limit-to come to each other's aid.
At Bogota, in the afternoon of Friday, April 30, twenty-one nations signed a pact which enlists them also as a unit of resistance against communist expansion. These twenty-one nations of the western hemisphere have adopted conventions and agreements, the whole of which may be regarded as a regional arrangement under articles 51 and 52 of the united nations charter. It is reasonable to assume that the nations of the middle east may eventually bring their league to the standard of a regional arrangement within the ambit of articles 51 and 52 of the charter.
The free world is purchasing a carefully prefabricated house, the parts of which will eventually and shortly be assembled. To the western union, the British commonwealth of nations, the Pan-American union, the Arab league, add up the few remaining free nations, and you obtain a federation of regional blocs including all the member-states of the united nations, except the U.S.S.R. and her satellites.
If such is the contemplated objective-and no doubt it is-it will be indeed a delicate operation to perform. In the next few months the free nations of the world, organizing themselves in order to assure their survival, will be skating on thin ice. It will be all the more dangerous, because they will have to act speedily.
I do not think, sir, that anyone can state that there will be no war in the near future. If it is so, it is only fair that the people be told. The U.S.S.R. may not want war; it may not be ready for a war. Perhaps they want war, and perhaps, compared with the strength of the opposing camp they are ready for a war.
Of course we cannot assess the possibilities of a war in present times as we did in the past. Hitler had over-run several countries with the aid of his fifth columns before the allies united and even fired a single shot. At the end of the hostilities we entered a race with the other allied countries for the demobilization of our forces and we won. The government was criticized for not having carried it out faster. While the demobilization race was on, we could read in our papers that parachute jumping contests were being held in the U.S.S.R. We hardly heard about any large-scale demobilization being carried on there.
We turned to the united nations for peace and security. After three years of effort, we find ourselves in a position as precarious as that which prevailed in 1939. The U.S.S.R

Supply-External Affairs
has adopted Hitler's tactics and gradually extends its domination over new territories. If permitted to carry on indefinitely this sneaky process of aggression, of course the U.S.S.R. will go on exclaiming that it does not want war, because in such circumstances it does not need war. It is up to us either to decide that we call Mr. Stalin and tell him that we bow to his ruling, in which case we would not have to debate commitments, et cetera-he would take care of all that for us-or to decide to unite with others against communist expansion, and along with them to undertake necessary obligations, the amplitude of which can be determined only by the needs of the hour. These needs will be assessed and listed by men, leaders in their country as in our own, who took part in the demobilization race to which I referred a moment ago, men who are not militarists, or aggressors, men who want freedom as we know it and cherish it, for their fellow countrymen and for themselves.
In trying to check the plan of aggression pursued by the U.S.S.R., we may be compelled to resort to military action. We cannot put aside that possibility. We must bear in mind the purport of the extraordinary measures adopted by the United States government in the last few' months. Pending the enactment of universal military training, the United States has re-enacted temporarily selective service legislation affecting approximately three million young men between twenty and twenty-six years of age. My understanding is that a line has been drawn and that the Moscow planners must take notice that they can go no farther.
The temporary setbacks suffered by communism in France and Italy have given us some ground for rejoicing. I venture to say that if communists had won the last general elections in Italy, the United States marines holidaying in the Mediterranean might have ceased to be tourists. A communist victory in Italy might have been counteracted by action which would have been tantamount to a declaration of war. Communist victories in any country that is now free must not take place. The free nations program must go farther if it is to observe the high objectives and principles of the united nations charter; it must contemplate the liberation of the people now under communist rule. It must aim at wiping out communism from this earth, so that once it is dislodged from its present headquarters, the Kremlin, it is not allowed to spring and flourish from elsewhere.
I have the opportunity, like many hon. members, of meeting people who take an active part in international affairs study groups. In
the months preceding the last session of the united nations assembly, some of them often felt that the U.S.S.R. was misunderstood, that the Russian diplomats were suspicious of the western powers, because they had an inferiority complex or for some other reason. They always had an excuse or a justification for a U.S.S.R. move, which by others were considered as further indications that the U.S.S.R. simply did not v'ant to co-operate unless they had their own way.
These people were not communists, or Russian sympathizers any more than Mexican sympathizers. They were Canadians trying to judge international events without prejudice and partiality. Their lack of information or their anxiety for peace and security probably impaired their judgment.
Only a few days after the opening of the last session of the general assembly, at Flushing Meadows, New York, at which I had the privilege to attend, I heard several delegates voice the opinion that the united nations could not make any progress because of Soviet obstruction tactics, and that they should make up their mind to carry on without them.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs translated, in his address before the assembly, the anxiety of a majority of delegations by sounding a warning note. He said:
Nations, in their search for peace and1 cooperation, will not and cannot accept indefinitely and unaltered a security council which was set up to ensure their security, and which, so many feel, has become frozen in futility, and divided by dissension. If forced, they may seek greater safety in an association of more democratic and peace-loving states, willing to accept more specific international obligations in return for greater national security. Such associations, if consistent with the principles and purposes of the charter, can be formed within the united nations. It is to be hoped that such a development will not be necessary. If it is unnecessary, it will be undesirable. If. however, it is made necessary, it will take place. Let us not forget that the provisions of the charter are a floor under, rather than a ceiling over, the responsibilities of member states. If some prefer to go even below that floor, others need not be prevented from moving upwards.
Very patiently and with dignity, delegates laboured at achieving some constructive solutions of world problems, but Soviet obstruction tactics persisted and frustrated their efforts.
The debates which took place, both in the general assembly and in the committees, revealed the insurmountable difficulties of trying to get along with people who simply do not want to co-operate.
Today we all realize that it is not unfair to lay the blame on the Soviet group. That is where it belongs.
Supply-External Affairs

There is, in the house and outside, at public meetings, during electoral campaigns, a practice which consists of calling the other fellow a communist. This sort of tactic achieves nothing but the creation of confusion in the public mind as to who is really a communist. In the accusations that have been made from time to time, no single member of the house has been spared; everyone is a communist. There was once a shepherd who, for his own amusement, decided to yell, "Wolves! Wolves!" To his assistance came promptly all the neighbouring shepherds. There were no wolves. He called again. They came and there were no wolves. He called a third time. There were wolves but the shepherds did not come. We might, with advantage, remember the lesson taught by the fabulist.
The minister has already explained the difficulties of Canada in its attitudes and their interpretation by other powers as being a satellite-like attitudes of the United States or the United Kingdom. If because of our common background, culture, traditions, institutions and interests, we happen to think often alike, our own people should not conclude that, we cannot stand up on our own. In a Montreal paper, a parliamentary correspondent wrote last week that Canada was moving from the orbit of Great Britain to enter the orbit of the United States. Canada is a member of the international community, move it from one orbit to the other if you wish. As the minister said on Thursday last, "This country is now inevitably and inextricably involved in the full current of international events." Those who might argue neutrality or nonparticipation in this worldwide crusade against communism will do so in the hope perhaps of obtaining some political advantages or in order to save their faces because they opposed war expenditures and participation too recently, or because they may find it healthy-to prevent abuses, they will say-to promote as a check encouragement to resistance to commitments of any kind. Before they embark, however, on a campaign of any sort, I wish they will pause to digest thoroughly the statement made by the minister last Thursday and await other developments which will further clarify the situation.
I address the same request to those who might be tempted to advocate greater commitments than necessary, or to exaggerate the danger. The press especially will, I am sure, in the circumstances exercise its freedom with a proper sense of responsibility and accountability to the people.
A majority in this country, in every section of this country, realizes, I believe, that isolation is impossible and that these are times without parallel in the history of mankind.

It is particularly significant and gratifying that the youth of this country should be so keen on studying international developments. Last March, at the invitation of the University of Montreal students, delegates representing student bodies from fifteen Canadian universities organized a federation of the international relations clubs of our Canadian universities. I am convinced that these young men and women, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, will play a leading part, in their respective communities, in the days ahead. Such is the case also for the junior boards of trade and chambres de commerce des jeunes all across the country. A delegation of this progressive youth movement has just returned to Canada after having participated, with great ability and honour, in the international congress of junior chambers of commerce, held at Rio de Janeiro. They, too, will be in the vanguard of the crusade which is now getting under way.
But in order to play their full part, they must be fully informed. I suggest that the widest distribution possible be made of the historic statement delivered last Thursday by the minister. Service clubs, business clubs, women's associations, labour groups, farmers' unions, branches of the Canadian Legion, youth organizations and others should be provided with copies of that statement for their membership. The press and radio should report it verbatim. The united nations association is, I think, the one association which could most effectively do a job of informing the public. They are engaged in this very wmrk, and the officers of the association would, I am sure, be only too glad to help more than they are able to do at present. The united nations association, in Canada, with very little money has done magnificent work. I trust that the government will give to that association this year greater recognition and support.
On motion of Mr. Beaudoin the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Bracken: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the business will be tomorrow?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We would hope rather early tomorrow to finish the debate on the motion to go into supply and then, when we get into supply, if it is desired to have questions answered on the floor of the house there will be an opportunity for doing so. If not, progress could be reported and I would move that the external affairs items of the estimates be withdrawn from committee of supply and

Business of the House
referred to the standing committee on external affairs. But before doing that, I would ask to have three other departments entered into so that we may have some work on the order paper before us.
Having disposed of this general debate on external affairs, I think it might be convenient to take up the resolution, which is No. 7 on the order paper, for the introduction of a bill to authorize such measures as may be necessary to carry into effect treaties of peace with Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland, which have already been approved by a joint resolution of both houses, and perhaps also to deal with the other resolution, under government notices of motions, with respect to whaling.
The minister of reconstruction would like to deal with the resolution in his name on the
order paper to amend the National Housing Act. I am not sure whether the Minister of Justice would like to complete consideration in committee of the whole of Bill No. 211 concerning the mounted police. If he proceeded with that he would probably proceed with a little bill from the senate, No. 214, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, which I understand is just a matter of extending to one other province the system of reformatories which is in existence in Ontario, and to do that at the request of the attorney general of any province. Having cleaned up these odds and ends on the order paper, we would in supply deal with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 4,1948