1950-09-02

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Monday, September 4, 1950, until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that, in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, no one is more anxious than I am to see the work of this special session completed as quickly as possible. In seeking an early termination of the session, however, the first consideration is to make sure that the people's business is given adequate consideration. On Votes and Proceedings today we have an indication of legislation and motions that will have a profound effect upon the Canadian economy and upon the general welfare of all our people. These matters are of a nature and a scale that call for adequate consideration by every member before he passes judgment.
If this house sits from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night, it does not mean that the members are working from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night. It means that any member who is attempting to understand what is being presented, and to give that measure of consideration which the importance of these measures demands, will be working from seven o'clock in the morning until well after midnight. Those measures do demand consideration. In addition to that, under our parliamentary system it is important that members who are associated in parties not only seek to understand these measures but that they have an opportunity to discuss them and gain the advantage of an exchange of ideas with those with whom they are associated.
For these reasons I believe that the work of this house will be completed more quickly, and in a manner consistent with the importance of the subjects before us, if sittings are held in the ordinary way in the afternoon and evening, leaving the mornings open for consideration of the important bills and motions which will be introduced.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to register my objection to this motion, for the reasons indicated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and for the reasons indicated yesterday in connection with another matter by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). In addition to those reasons, I am opposed to this motion because it seems to me to be part of a pattern, indicating the government's desire not only to get this session over as early as possible but to get parliament away from Ottawa.
That plan worries me, Mr. Speaker, because my fear is-I believe there are others in the house who share or at least understand that fear-that after we return home there is a danger of other crises arising. The international situation could worsen, or the situation on the home front could demand, in connection with rising prices for example, other measures than those which may be brought before us during this session. Yet with parliament back home the government would be powerless to deal with these crises that might arise.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there is this urgency, not only should we deal with the matters before us in a more responsible manner, as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) yesterday, but it should also be made clear to us that if there are any further crises after the immediate business before us is over, parliament will be called back. I imagine that the government is not anxious to have another special session, but it could be that this session, following the practice pursued by parliament during the last war, could simply be adjourned so that we could be called back in the event of any crisis. I feel that unless the world situation clears before next June, as all of us hope it may, the same principle will apply then with respect to the session of 1951. Indeed, so long as there is any state of crisis facing us in this country or facing the world, the people's representatives should not feel that they are being rushed away from Ottawa but should either be kept here or should be readily callable so that they can deal with the people's business without delay.
I personally do not object to working longer hours, but I feel that the supremacy of parliament in these matters should be

Business of the House recognized. As to some of the suggestions I have made, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) may not wish to answer at this time; but I think he should consider the whole situation with his colleagues in the government and let the house know at the earliest possible moment how the government plans to deal with other crises that could develop after we have dealt with the matters now before us.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group want to help the government to get through the business of the house as soon as it is possible to do so. But at the same time we feel that we just cannot give to the measures that are being brought before us the consideration which they should be given if we have to sit three times a day. We are prepared to support the government in sitting on Saturdays and on every other day of the week for two sittings, but we would ask, for the reasons already advanced, that the government consider withdrawing this motion at this time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We have heard only three of the hon. members of this house, Mr. Speaker, and we have had three rather diverging views. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does not object to the long hours. This motion has no other purpose than to provide for long hours. I am sure that the hon. gentleman is not serious in thinking that anyone here would deprive us of the pleasure of having him with us at Ottawa; but that is something which can be dealt with on some other occasion.
At this moment the only question is whether or not the business of the house will be more efficiently dealt with by sitting three times a day or by sitting twice a day. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) told us that it would be dealt with better and more expeditiously by sitting twice a day. There are a great many who do not share that view. We all have the same concern about having the business properly and seriously considered, but we do not all agree as to what is the best method to adopt in order to achieve that end. I think that the diverging views will have to be determined in the ordinary way, that is, by the acceptance of those which are shared by the majority of the members of this house.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that he has heard from only three members. I had not intended to say anything, but I endorse all that my leader has said. I am one of those who naturally would like to be at

home at this time of the year, but I was elected a member of parliament; and I have certainly had a bit of a gruelling experience in this past week, in my humble way, with the house meeting three times a day. Certainly it was extremely important, but we did not have time properly to study and to consider the legislation that was before us. It just cannot be done, even if you forgo your regular meals and grab a snack on the run.
When we met here for an emergency session this week, the government had not their legislation prepared. They have technical advisers whose assistance we in the apposition do not have, and they certainly have a great advantage over us. Even when they were asked questions yesterday, they said they were considering several matters and had not yet made a decision on them. The country therefore will surely understand that we of the opposition are at a disadvantage in that respect. I am sure that all the important legislation that is to come before us cannot be given the consideration which it deserves if we meet three times a day.
It has teen pointed out that the several parties have to hold caucuses.. The government do not yet know what their legislation is. In fact I am reminded of the definition of a member of parliament which I heard as I was leaving to come down here. The definition was this: one who was elected by the people to represent them in parliament, but whom this government did not like to see in Ottawa any more than they have to, until they got themselves into a real mess and then they put on an airlift to get him here to help them out of the mess.
I also agree with one of the other speakers -not of this party-who said that world conditions are extremely serious. But I would ask you to remember this, Mr. Speaker. It was common knowledge that this government did not intend to call us here until the last week in September or the first week in October in order to deal with the very matters we are now debating, namely, national defence and the Korean situation. Until this railway strike came on us as a great crisis, they had no thought of calling us here for another three, four or five weeks. I therefore do not know where the consistency is when they tell us there is all this urgency to meet three times a day, thus affording no time to hon. members to give consideration to the legislation which is presented to this house. I hope that the members will be fair about this matter, if we have to decide it by a recorded vote.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add much to what I said yesterday, but I am glad that others

are beginning to feel as this group did then. I would draw to your attention and recall to your memory the roar of nays that was heard from the opposite side of the house and the opposite end of it yesterday when the matter was put to a vote. But today we have nothing but empty seats. Certain members are extremely anxious that others should sit here on Saturday, but they are not sitting here themselves on Saturday to look after the people's business. Those who have so little regard for the people's business as to absent themselves from the house have no business to vote when the question comes up as to what hours we should sit.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the points made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) are well taken. We just cannot give the proper consideration to the measures that are coming before us if this motion is adopted. These measures are important. Notice is given today of a measure that I cannot remember having seen before. We cannot consider these matters properly if we are to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night. I would ask hon. members on both sides of the house to give us the time to deal with these measures as they deserve to be dealt with.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: As
the mover of the motion yesterday, Mr. Speaker, having to do with hours of sitting, may I say that I concur in what the hon. member for Vancouver Bast (Mr. Maclnnis) has just said. I regret that I did not ask for a recorded vote yesterday. The roar from the benches opposite was such that I immediately took it as the view of the house, but today the benches from which that roar of nays came are empty. I say that members who are present this afternoon have a just cause of complaint at the absence of so many government supporters.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a question, and I hope he will believe I am asking it in good faith. It was perfectly intelligible to us all why we should sit three periods a day when the railway strike was before us. It was urgent; it was necessary; every hour counted. It was my own leader who suggested that we should give up our lunch hour and sit right through.
With regard to the present matters before us, while they are very urgent, I think it is fair to say that they hardly have the hour-to-hour urgency that the railway measure had.	*
I should like to point out that we on this side of the house feel very earnestly what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said,
Business of the House namely, that it is hard for us to consider measures which presumably have been considered for many hours by the government with their expert advisers, and which are then brought to us here. We, on the other hand, have very inadequate time at the best of times, with only a fraction of the expert assistance which the government has, to do our best to consider these methods. I assume that one of the reasons why we do not ordinarily sit three times a day is that it is recognized we do not spend the morning in junketing, but that we do spend it in consideration of measures which are before us.
I say very respectfully but earnestly to the Prime Minister that not only has nothing been said to indicate why we should depart from ordinary routine which has been followed during the life of parliament, but I suggest that on the contrary next week is a particularly inopportune time to do that, because, as has already been pointed out by my leader, next week we shall have to consider perhaps more than the usual number of difficult and perplexing matters.
I repeat that if it were a matter of hour-to-hour urgency to reach a decision I do not think my leader ever would have raised the question. We honestly and sincerely ask the government: why, then, depart next week from generations of parliamentary practice? For this ho reason has been suggested that I have been able to grasp. I ask why next week we cannot have the time which it is ordinarily considered desirable for us to have to consider the measures before us and to do our duty.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: It is
rarely that I have had occasion to criticize the wisdom of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and of the government, nor am I today particularly criticizing his wisdom. But I appeal to both his wisdom and his generosity and ask him to give some consideration to what has been said here this afternoon.
As an ordinary member of parliament I have the feeling that we private members have not had an opportunity of considering the vast program of legislation that is being brought forward and will be on the order paper next week. I would be grateful for a little more time to give it major consideration next week rather than have three sittings a day.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: As one who
has sat in the House of Commons for almost fifteen years and has often seen days wasted on matters that did not amount to a hill of beans, except for political reasons, I would ask the house to get down to sane business methods.

Business of the House
As has been pointed out already, in the coming days we shall have matters of grave importance to this country to deal with. For the life of me I cannot see why the house should have three sittings a day. Let us put in our time usefully and sensibly rather than talking politically, as many hours and even days have been wasted in the past. I hope we shall get down to sane business methods now and, commencing Monday, proceed with two sittings a day.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to be offensive to members of parliament, and I still think we can give fair and intelligent consideration to these matters with three sittings a day; but I do confess that the resolutions which are in Votes and Proceedings have appeared for the first time this morning. So that we shall have no ill feeling about it, may I suggest that I have permission to defer this motion and bring it up again, and then substitute for "Monday" whatever may be the appropriate day. I would then hope that after hon. members have had time to consider these resolutions, and after we have had some opportunity on Monday to deal with them, hon. members will feel differently about the advisability of having further mornings for consultations.
One hon. member said that when we did not sit in the mornings it did not mean that the morning was wasted. Usually the morning is devoted to meetings of committees. No committees have been set up, and there are therefore no committees sitting at that time. I shall not say any more about it at this moment. If it is preferred by hon. members that they have until three o'clock Monday afternoon to look at the terms of the resolutions which are now in Votes and Proceedings-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us decide by vote now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there is any challenge to a vote at this time the government is quite prepared to have it recorded; but if the attitude is that we do not want to quarrel, and that we all want to arrive at the best possible method of considering these matters, it might be agreeable to suggest that we defer a decision upon this motion until I ask to have it called again. If that is not agreeable, I am quite prepared to go on with it. But if it is agreeable, I am prepared to have it deferred to be called again either on Tuesday or Wednesday, because I think hon. members will come to the conclusion, after having con-


sidered the matter, that they would not then have the same objection to three sittings a day.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: At the special session in September, 1939, three o'clock was the opening hour, and there was war.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. member has the advantage over me. I was not here at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: Neither was I.


Mr. Howe:: The session lasted five days.


George Alexander Drew: I think that hon. members here are as anxious as the Prime Minister to get on with the business of the house. I must confess that I was not impressed by the suggestion that unless the proposal made by the Prime Minister was acceptable it would be put to a vote. I am not agreeable to deferring it. Unless the motion is withdrawn I suggest that a vote be taken.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All right.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Even though events overnight have outdated this announcement I am going to make, I should like to keep the promise I made yesterday. The strike of the coastal steamship personnel on the Pacific coast has been settled. An agreement dated September 1, signed late last night, is to this effect:	The
seafarers' international union and the companies concerned are agreeable to the same conditions of settlement as provided for in the legislation passed August 30, namely, four cents an hour increase effective immediately and such changes in working conditions for coastal steamship personnel in the operating employees group as may follow from the negotiations pursuant to this legislation. The hourly increase will apply to overtime rates. Hours of work performed by deck and engine ratings on Canadian National and Canadian Pacific coastal steamships shall be eight hours in a spread of not greater than sixteen hours.
Operations are being resumed immediately. Both parties have expressed appreciation of the assistance by officers of the Department of Labour in settling the dispute.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which unfortunately I have been unable to give him notice. In view of statements in the press of Canada today, and questions being raised in both London and New York, and in order to clarify the exchange position and prevent the utmost confusion, can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not the government has any intention of altering the official exchange rate of the Canadian, dollar in terms of the United States dollar?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): No consideration has been given to the matter referred to in the hon. member's question.



QUESTION AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON FIVE YEAR POOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that we are approaching the distribution of payments for the participation certificates for wheat sold by farmers during the five-year pool, would the minister state what amount per bushel will be paid over and above the amount in the pool by way of compensation for the losses sustained by the farmers during that period?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I stated at the last session, when the wheat in the five-year pool has all been sold the matter of final payment will be considered. Until then it is impossible to give consideration to the matter, in view of the fact that there is no way of determining accurately what the final balance sheet of the .pool will be.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a further question? Has he any idea when distribution will be made? There are areas in the west in which the farmers are asking when they may expect it. As I remember, the minister said that distribution could not be made until after July 31. I should like to know if he has any information as to when it is expected the payments can be made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as the final payment on wheat is concerned, I think I stated at the last session that I was hopeful it could be

The Address-Mr. Harkness made in this calendar year. I intimated that considerable time must elapse after July 31 before all the wheat could be sold. Deliveries of wheat during July were running close to six million bushels per week, and my hop. friend will realize that some time will have to elapse before that wheat can be sold and moved to world markets. However, I expect that final settlement of the coarse grains pool will be made considerably before the end of the year.


James Arthur Ross: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Can the minister state what the carry-over of wheat was on August 1?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The statistical carry-over-that is, the carry-over of all wheat in Canada- was about 100 million bushels.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a further question. In view of the fact that many farmers in western Canada are now threshing, can the minister say when the prices for the various grades will be set, and when the elevator companies will be able to pay cash for deliveries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I inquired two or three days ago and I was told that it is hoped that the spreads could be fixed by the end of next week. It is difficult this year, on account of the uncertainty as to the quality and quantity of the various grades, to fix the spreads, but it is hoped that it can be done after another week.


Hazen Robert Argue: When the spreads are fixed, will the elevators be in a position to issue cheques?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, September 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Charles Cannon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the speech from the throne, this session was called to consider two grave matters, the railroad strike, and our defence problems. The Korean affair and the extremely serious world situation have made it necessary to review our defences. Not only is it necessary to review them; 'it has become


apparent that they must be considerably enlarged, from the point of view of both manpower and of equipment. I am glad to see that the government already has taken steps in that direction.
On arriving here I think all hon. members realized that the international situation and matters concerning defence were the more important of the matters to be considered, but the more immediately pressing matter was the strike, which was dealt with first, as its urgency demanded. In much the same way the Canadian people have .two great questions on their minds, or perhaps I should say two great worries. The first and more important is the fear of another war and the devastation and suffering it would bring. The second is the evidence of inflationary trends which are causing constant increases in the cost of living and creating difficulties from week to week in the feeding, clothing and sheltering of families. That is the immediate and pressing problem in connection with which our people look to this government to take some immediate action which will give them a measure of relief.
It has been said many times, and I think it will bear repetition now, that the people on whom inflation imposes the greatest difficulties are the so-called white-collar workers- clerks in stores, office people, and others of that type, and people living on fixed incomes, particularly pensioners, but also people living on annuities and other forms of savings. Every increase in the cost of living imposes further hardships on such people. In most cases there is nothing they can do about it, no action they can take to improve their lot. I think the point has been reached where steps must be taken to end the constant decline in the purchasing power of the dollar which makes it difficult for all of us, but particularly for that large section of the population about whom I have just been speaking.
I now wish to say something about the general world situation. Its gravity has been emphasized by every speaker who has taken part in the debate. Essentially it is no more grave now than it was three months ago, but the outbreak of war in Korea has more or less focused it in the minds of the people of the free world, and has brought about the realization that the masters of the Kremlin are engaged in a program of world domination that will halt only when opposed by sufficient forces to persuade them that further advances are not likely to be successful. As a result of that realization, and the fact that the only hope for peace is a rearmed western world, vast rearmament programs have now been undertaken by the United States, Great Britain, France, and in fact by all the rest of the

western world. So far as Canada is concerned, we have an indication of what Canada is doing in the issue of Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, available to members today.
In his speech at the beginning of this debate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) referred to what has been a subject of discussion for some time in many papers, namely, that more occurrences such as Korea are likely to take place from now on. I think there is no doubt that the Russians will try to get us to disperse our forces in these comparatively small wars and thus weaken ourselves. The problem of meeting this type of aggression is an extremely serious one. I think we all agree that further communist advances must be stopped, but the western world cannot afford to commit its strength piecemeal in various parts of the world. Quite frankly I have no pat answer as to how the problem must be met, but it is a question upon which decisions must be made. Certainly Canada cannot afford to send small forces to every place where an outbreak may occur, such as countries in the Far East, Persia, and so on. In other words, if we are to be strong at home, which I think is the first and vital necessity, we cannot send forces to every trouble spot in the world. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should make a further statement about how we propose to meet this problem which seems certain to develop. We should know whether or not the government has any definite ideas on the matter.
I was glad to gather from the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we are now prepared to look at the world situation more realistically than we have viewed it in many instances in the past. I thought this was demonstrated particularly by his reference to the rearmament of Germany. I should like to remind the house that I put forward the same proposition on June 8 of this year when we were discussing the defence estimates. I think I cannot do better than to read what I said at that time. I do so because I should like to restate the position I took then and elaborate on it to some extent. At that time I said, as recorded at page 3357 of Hansard:
One of the most important considerations in the strategy set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the protection of western Europe is what is to be done with western Germany. Russia is now arming the Germans in the Russian zone of Germany. In my opinion the decision is squarely up to the Atlantic pact nations to do the same thing in the western zone, or, if we are not prepared at the present time to arm the Germans in our zone, we must accept the proposition that none of the western zone of Germany can be defended.
The Address-Mr. Harkness We shall have to write it off in the beginning as an area to be overrun by the Russians, in the event of war with them.
Personally I think it is also extremely unlikely that, without the armed manpower of western Germany, any of the western European nations with the exception of the peninsulas-Italy, possibly, and more likely Spain, and of course Great Britain because of her island position-could be held successfully. But apart from those countries it would seem to me most unlikely that the North Atlantic pact countries, as the strategy enunciated suggests, could be saved from occupation unless that large pool of manpower in western Germany is utilized.
I should like to know whether this aspect of the matter has been considered in formulating our defence policy, and what the conclusions have been with respect thereto. I know that this whole question is a very thorny one, concerning which most governments in western Europe do not wish to commit themselves, because there is still a large body of opinion mortally afraid of a rearmed Germany. However, in my view this is one of the most important questions to be faced-indeed, perhaps the vital one-if this new strategy is to be carried into effect.
If our government has any opinion in the matter, then we should be told about it in the House of Commons. If our military leaders have anything like the view I have enunciated, we should be told. If they do take that view, then we as a country should be prepared to press for its adoption.
Evidently since that time the government has come to the conclusion that the rearmament of western Germany has become a necessity, or, alternatively, that sufficient forces must be stationed in western Europe to defend that country against a possible Russian attack. I do not think that is a practical proposition. In my opinion the question of rearming western Germany is the crux of the defence of western Europe, and thus we may say of the whole free world. If Russia takes the final step of plunging the world into war, western Europe can be saved from conquest-I say "can" and not "would be" saved-by rearming Germany together with the forces of the other western powers.
But I am afraid that without a rearmed Germany-in fact I feel certain in my own mind-western Europe cannot be saved. The leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Drew) indicated yesterday something of the disparity in forces existing in that area. The western nations have twelve divisions and the Russians have 176. I think it must be apparent to everyone that we cannot possibly maintain anything like a sufficient number of troops on the continent to counter the mass of men and armour that the Russians have poised there, and which they could put in motion very rapidly.
Another point in connection with this matter to which I should like to direct attention, and it is perhaps even more important, is that a rearmed western Germany would be the greatest deterrent, after the atomic bomb, to Russia attempting a move westward. In other words, I think it would be the greatest

The Address-Mr. Harkness force to prevent war, the greatest action which could be taken to prevent war at the present time of any of the various rearmament measures that are being carried out.
There was one other matter to which I referred last year, and I was disappointed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not mention it. It concerns the matter of coming to some agreement with Spain. When a war threatens it is well to consider the worst that could happen. If the Russians march in Europe within any appreciable time in the future, there is nothing to stop them from overrunning western Germany,. Belgium, Holland and France in two or three weeks. There is not the force there, and it could not be got there. The only place which could be defended with the forces available in that country, or available to the western powers, is Spain. I do not believe there is any doubt that it could be held. It might be possible to hold Italy as well, but certainly Spain could be held. If it could be held, and the worst happened, that would give us a place for air operations against the Russians, and provide a base upon which men and materials could be assembled to do what we had to do in the last war, retake the continent from the conquerors. It seems to me that this matter of coming to some arrangement with Spain has now become an extremely important one, and one on which this government should take some stand. As I say, I am glad the government has taken a stand on the German question. I think it was long overdue.
Coming now, Mr. Speaker, to our own defence problems, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) stressed the point that it had never been envisaged that the United Nations would take military measures. As a result no role of that kind had been planned for any Canadian force. Even if that be so, my point is that when aggression occurred in Korea we had no force in being, other than naval, which could fight effectively anywhere, including our own territory. The general reaction which I found among the people in Calgary, and the most frequent phrase I heard used when the Korean force was officially announced, was one with which you are all familiar, "Too little and too late". Whether that force is too little, I am not prepared to argue. The dispersal of the forces is a prime consideration in any decision on the question whether forces can be sent to a place like Korea. It is a matter upon which I should not like to express an opinion without knowing more about the entire situation, and what forces we are likely to have in the next few months.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, our response to the United Nations request for ground troops was too late. I think there is no question about that. It was too late particularly from the psychological point of view. I believe the slowness of our response did a great deal of damage amongst our own people, and a great deal of damage to our reputation throughout the world. I am very much afraid that the delay of nearly a month created the general impression that our brave words of the past in support of the United Nations were mere talk which we were not prepared to back up with action. Surely it was clear when the United Nations asked us for ground troops to support the action in Korea that we must reply affirmatively. Under those circumstances I find it difficult to understand why this delay of a month took place before any answer was given. Surely it would have been much better from every point of view to say that we would send ground forces. As I say, it seems to me it was clear that if we were to continue to support the United Nations, if the United Nations was to be effective, we had to reply affirmatively. Why the delay of a month, which created this bad impression at home and abroad? It seems to me the only answer is the inability of the government to make up its mind. The same difficulty has characterized it on many other occasions. The government hates to make a decision which may lose some votes some time some place.
In that connection I should like to say that Canadians were shocked to learn, after all the reassuring statements by the Minister of National Defence and the government, and after all the large amounts of money which have been spent on defence, that we had no ground troops we could send when the United Nations asked for them. The people of this country found it impossible to believe that, because the opposite picture had been built up in their minds. They were told we were well prepared; that we had forces of all kinds. If the true picture had been presented to the people, that with the possible exception of one battalion we had no ground troops available to fight anywhere, including Canada, the shock would have been much greater. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. We have not ground forces available to fight anywhere, except that one battalion. The people of Canada do not realize that yet. They think we have the forces available but have kepi them home to defend this country. We could not have sent anything when the United Nations asked for it, except that one battalion, because we did not have troops ready tc fight. By troops ready to fight I mean units up to strength, fully equipped and fullj armed. No other troops can be said to be

ready to fight. There is no use throwing troops into action who are partly equipped and partly trained.
The only information which this house or the general public has received on this matter of troops was given on June 8 last, about a month before the ground troops were requested by the United Nations. This is the only definite information we have ever received about ground troops that even the government pretended were fighting units. I am referring to the airborne brigade group. This is what we were told about the brigade group on June 8, as it appears at page 3377 of Hansard. The minister was answering a question I had asked, and he said:
Then he asked whether the brigade group was up to strength. I can tell him that it is at eighty per cent of the establishment. I might say, since the hon. member has expressed interest in it before, that at the present time we have more trained paratroopers in Canada than landed in the low countries in the German invasion in May, 1940.
A brigade group consists of three infantry battalions, an artillery regiment, an antitank battery, an engineer company, a signal company, and medical and other service units. I happen to know that one battalion was up to strength, so on the basis of the whole brigade being up to eighty per cent of strength the other two battalions must have been short approximately 250 men each, or about two-thirds of strength. We will take it that the other units were all at eighty per cent of strength, although actually I do not think they were. I believe there was a considerable variation. At any rate, there is our situation so far as the three fighting battalions are concerned.
As has been pointed out by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the units of the brigade group have never been brought together for training. They have no signal staff trained to control their operations. They have no headquarters staff, no commander or staff officers trained for the job. The brigade had no exercise as a group, and was therefore in no position to operate as a brigade group. It could not have been sent to Korea, nor could it have fought in this country if it had been required to do so when the demand was made. I only hope that so far as strength and equipment is concerned it is now in a position to do so. I know it is not in a position to do so from the point of view of operating together, because the brigade group has still never been trained together as a formation.
The minister is well aware, as are many other members of the house, of the fact that for over three years, I have pointed out in every defence debate-and other members have done the same thing-that we had no
The Address-Mr. Harkness ground forces ready to fight. This is not a new thing. It has been pointed out in every defence debate for the last three years. We have pounded this thing home time after time. We have pointed out that the Canadian army, which the minister constantly described in round figures as at about 20,000, was chiefly a desk and caretaking establishment, made up of men who were in services of various sorts, but that so far as having a fighting force was concerned, we did not have it.
The whole point is that that realization was never brought home to the people. They did not grasp the fact. They heard the minister's assurances, in speeches all over the country, that we had about 20,000 men in the army, that it was the best-trained army of its size in the world, that it was well equipped, and so forth. But the thing that they were never told, and the thing that they did not realize was that we had at most three to four thousand men in fighting units; that that is all that were available to fight under any circumstances, and furthermore, that those men had never been trained to fight together.
That was the picture and that has- been the picture right up to the present time. We just have not any ground forces in being ready to fight. It is a situation which must be corrected, and corrected immediately.
The type of thing we have had is contained in the latter part of this statement I have just read:
I might say, since the hon. member has expressed interest in it before, that at the present time we have more trained paratroopers in Canada than landed in the low countries in the German invasion in May, 1940.
That statement was given wide publicity. Everybody in this country practically had in his mind the idea that the Germans just rained down paratroopers in the low countries in 1940, that they had thousands and thousands of them. I do not know whether the minister intended to give that impression, but certainly that was the one that was given.
As I say, that statement is typical of the statements he has been making for the last two or three years. He has made statement after statement reassuring the people about what a fine state our defence forces were in, and they were all statements of this kind. They misled people. They gave them completely wrong information about the situation. It is difficult for me to understand *why the minister has done this sort of thing so frequently.
We have the same sort of thing in the speech that the minister made here the day before yesterday in this very debate. He

The Address-Mr. Harkness gave us a list of things which had been ordered, and a list of things that were to be bought, and stuff along that line; and he talked in rather general terms about what a fine condition everything was in. The general impression of the speech on persons who knew little about the matter would be: Well, everything is in good hands; the defence forces are going ahead splendidly; they are going to get sill the equipment they need and all the men they need; everything is fine; we do not need to worry about our defence. That is the impression they would get, whereas exactly the reverse is the situation.
The other day the Prime Minister, in reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), said that if the strictures contained in the amendment that was moved by the leader of the opposition were correct, the government should resign. I do not think there is any question that the strictures with regard to defence are correct. The country has not been adequately looked after in the matter of defence, having regard to the amount of money which has been voted for it. In other words, the funds which have been voted for defence have not been wisely expended. They have not succeeded in giving us a fighting force in being; and that is what is needed when it comes to war. All these other things on which the money has been spent are all very well in their way. They would all be extremely necessary if we had an army of six or seven divisions, but they do not give us anything on the ground, ready to go in with a bayonet or a machine gun and eject any invader who happened to land in this country.
So much for the past, Mr. Speaker. It is the present and the future which we must now consider. To begin with, the government must be much more frank than they have been in the past with this house and with the people of Canada in regard to the state of our defences. We have asked repeatedly for a committee on defence in which the true picture of our forces could be obtained. The need for it is now greater than ever, and I should like to reiterate what the leader of the opposition said yesterday, namely, that such a committee should be set up forthwith and should proceed immediately to the business of finding out just what our defence picture is, just what is necessary to correct the situation in which we find ourselves, and whether or not it is being done.
The whole point is that we have not been able to do that. The Prime Minister said that this House of Commons would be a committee on defence, that the whole assembly would


be a committee on defence. He and everyone else knows that that is not a practicable proposition. We cannot bring the defence chiefs into this house and question them about details on defence matters. In many cases there are things about which we would not want to question them publicly, in any event. It needs no argument on my part or on the part of anyone else to make it quite clear that anything like a reasonable and full examination of defence matters cannot be undertaken by the House of Commons itself. It is just not a practicable proposition.
Recruiting for the special service brigade has been good, and I am extremely glad that is so. Our men answered the appeal of the government, which in this case was couched in terms that persuaded them they were needed. That is what has been necessary in the past, and that is what we have not had in the past. The appeal for recruits which was made last year and the year before for the regular forces, and the appeal for recruits in the reserve units, have not been of a kind which brought home to the individual young man in the street the fact that there was any urgency in the matter, that his services were really needed. As a consequence we did not get a good result.
The minister has constantly claimed, for the last two or three years, that they were getting all the recruits they needed for the regular force, but that they would like to get a few more for the reserve force. I do not think they ever got all they wanted. In fact I know they did not for the permanent force, and they certainly got only a trickle for the reserve force. The men who were brought into the reserve force were brought in, in my experience, which is considerable, almost entirely by men who were already in units. Any action taken by the government had little effect and brought in few recruits. The recruits who were brought in were brought in as a result of individual effort. As a matter of fact, many of the reserve units at the present time are going to desperate lengths to try to get recruits. They are resorting to bribery and so on; they are practically paying people to join up.
That is a situation which we should not have in this country, and I am convinced that it is a situation which we do not need to have. It seems to me that the government must make the appeal in such terms and must show the urgency of this matter in such a way that we shall get a response. I am convinced that we shall get a response if the young men of this country are convinced that they are needed, and that is something of which so far they have not been convinced.

It has been apparent for some considerable time that the existing dangerous situation in the world made it necessary that we have in Canada for the defence of Canada at least one division of regular troops. I think that is a minimum; there should not be any question about it. I doubt whether the minister would argue very much on that point at the present time. In addition to that, however, the really basic defence of the country, in the case of a general war breaking out, must be the reserve army. The reserve army can constitute that basic defence only if it is fairly well up to strength.
We have in this country left over from the last war sufficient equipment of the type that was used at that time-it is true it is not the most up-to-date equipment in the world, but it is sufficiently up to date for the job, namely, the basic defence of this country. What we need is the men. It is the government's responsibility to take measures to get these men, to get them into the permanent force, and to get them into the reserve units. So far that responsibility has not been met.
The minister talked in vague terms about the splendid summer training that the reserve force units received. He said that the reserve force units would be strengthened in the coming year. A general statement of that kind means nothing. It means nothing to me; it means nothing to anybody in Canada, and it will probably result in no action. What we want to know here, what we should know, is how these reserve units are to be strengthened. I have pointed out that the problem is to get men into them. How do the government propose to get these men in? I repeat, they failed to get them in the past because they did not carry home to the people the urgency of the matter, and that must be done.
In his statement the minister said a good deal about the increase in naval strength. He spoke about the number of ships that were now in commission, the number being built, the number being recommissioned, and so forth. I was glad to hear that. I trust that there will be no undue delay in getting these ships finished and getting the ones which have been out of commission recommissioned and in action.
It is all very well to hear those fine stories that we will do this, that and the other thing, but I should like to have something much more specific and definite as to the approximate dates on which these things will be done. The same thing applies to the air force. We have quite a few figures in regard to the increased jet engine production which was to take place, and the number of jet planes which we would have. When shall we have
692&2-11
The Address-Mr. Harkness them? That is what I should like to know. How many shall we have on various dates?
The minister said that a hundred Mustangs had been purchased from the United States. Mustangs have proved fine for strafing ground troops and for close support of the infantry. In Korea they have been very useful. The reason they have been so useful there is that the enemy had no jet fighters to oppose them. Had there been any jet fighter strength on the part of the North Koreans, those Mustangs would have been shot out of the air very quickly.
The provision of the hundred Mustangs is a reasonable step to take as an interim measure, but it should not be represented to the people of Canada as a great step forward in the defence of this country. These Mustang fighters will fill an interim need until we get jet fighters, but I hope the period during which they have to fill that need is short. They could help if we had sufficient jet fighters to engage more or less the majority that the enemy could put up at any time. They could be useful for the purpose for which they are being used now in North Korea, namely, for ground strafing, and so forth. But let no one fool himself by thinking that these Mustangs are fighter planes which are capable of defending this country against a modernly equipped enemy.
No objection has ever been raised in this house to voting the money asked for defence needs. The criticisms in the matter of defence have all been directed to how the money was spent and whether we were getting value for it. It is now apparent to everyone in this country that we were not getting value for it, and that it was not being spent in the best way possible.
There is no question at the present moment about the house voting the large sums, which, as is indicated in today's Votes and Proceedings, we shall be asked to vote next week for defence. However, when we vote these sums we want to know in detail how the money has been spent in the past, and what these increases will give us in the matter of definite protection-not vague general statements.
As I said before, the speech of the Minister of National Defence was chiefly a list of equipment; as somebody observed to me afterwards, it sounded much like a quartermaster's indent, combined with a list of things which are going to be done. That is not what we want. We want to know definitely what has been done, and on what dates other things will be done. By "dates" I do not mean down to the minute or the hour; I mean approximately.
When the appropriation bill comes up we must have this detailed information. At the
162	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Prudham present moment I do not propose to go into further details so far as the defence situation is concerned. But I shall certainly reserve the right to ask questions and get all the information which appears to be necessary when the appropriation bill is before us.


Mr. George Prudham (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I .do not pretend to be an expert on national defence or international affairs, but I should like to make a few remarks on the general economic and production frontier at home in Canada.
In my youth I learned a trade. I carried the tools, and I am very proud to say that I carried a union card. Over the years I have slowly been able to accumulate working capital and arrived at the place where I had several hundred employees. I think I know the views of the workingman at first hand, and I know the problems of meeting a payroll.
I believe that the average man in every walk of life is honest and anxious not only to make a decent living for himself and his family but to make a real contribution to the welfare of the community and the country.
As a result of the depression of the thirties there has been a widespread fear of unemployment. During those dreadful years and since, many theorists with good intentions have preached that overproduction was the cause of our troubles and the cause of our unemployment. With the advent of the machine and improved techniques it was only reasonable that the worker should expect that some of the benefits of the improved techniques and machines and the savings in time should be passed on to him.
During the war the demand for shorter hours was forgotten. The people of this country went all-out to produce the weapons and the sinews of war. Despite the greatly reduced supply of manpower, production in this country went to heights which were thought impossible before that time. After the war, and with the return of the men from the forces, there was great fear that we would have another period of unemployment. Largely as a result of that fear trade unions and people in other walks of life began to think in terms of shorter hours of work, in order that the available employment might be distributed among as many people as possible.
Since the war we have enjoyed a period of almost full employment, and with greater prosperity than this country has ever known before. The government, trade unions and business management can take a great deal of credit and satisfaction from the splendid way Canada has emerged from a wartime to a peacetime economy. I believe the fact that we work shorter hours has had a beneficial


effect upon the attainment of full employment since the war. In my opinion that same condition of shorter hours has also had its drawbacks. A shorter working period with the same or higher pay inevitably adds to the cost of production, and higher costs to the consumer.
Full employment has reduced competition in the labour field, and the great post-war demand for consumer goods has reduced competition in business. Since the war, with the backlog of demands for consumer goods, and employment at a level higher than we have ever known it before, there has been a measure of inefficiency all through our production and distribution system which, before the war, by means of competition was kept at a minimum. This has all contributed to higher prices for the consumer.
Highly desirable social services have been initiated on a national scale and they, too, have contributed to the higher costs charged the consumer. I am not finding fault with those social services. They are most desirable. We are blessed with great resources in Canada, and produce food and other products which the rest of the world requires and is prepared to buy. We are becoming more self-sufficient in manufactured goods and, if left to our own devices, I am sure we could continue to raise our standard of living and improve our social services without interruption.
However, the fact that we have attained the position of one of the great nations of the world, the fact that we are assuming the stature of a first-class nation, not only places world obligations upon us but also invites the envy of other nations. Our population is small. No other thirteen and a half million people anywhere in the world have a greater heritage than we have in Canada. While in other parts of the world there is overcrowding, so that according to our standards the people must live under subnormal conditions, we cannot sidestep world obligations.
In the world of nations the law of the jungle still applies. There are still aggressors who have the ambition to dominate the world. Reluctant though we are to admit it, we must face that challenge and must realize that only the fittest nations are going to survive. The aggressor is already on the rampage. Even now our armed forces are fighting and some of them dying. We are reluctant to accept the reality that we are going to have not only to prepare our defences at home but to be ready to meet the aggressor in other parts of the world.
The point I make is that however beneficial and desirable shorter hours of work

have been to our post-war economy, I do not believe such a condition should even be considered when our very survival is threatened. I believe every workman should be paid an adequate wage. I believe industry and thrift in the field of labour and business should be rewarded, but I also believe that we are only kidding ourselves if we think we can work shorter hours and maintain a higher standard of living, and at the same time defend our country and help defend the other free nations of the world. There is a danger that within a very short time we will be fighting for our very lives. Would it not be wisdom for this country now, before our backs are to the wall, to forget about shorter hours, and to go to a forty-four or forty-eight hour week? The price of freedom is, in my opinion, not money, but production. Maximum national security can be obtained only by every section of the community going all-out in an effort to produce. I am also convinced that greater production at this time would help to stop the upward spiral of prices.
I know there are hon. members in the house who advocate that the economy of the country should be placed again under rigid control. I believe there is a better way of attaining the desired result. It is my view that the people of Canada could do it voluntarily, and I say controls should be avoided as long as possible.
It has long been recognized that a voluntary fighting force has better morale than a conscripted force. The same applies to the home front. If we can make an all-out effort voluntarily it would be much better than if we are forced by law or through the circumstance of war.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has stated that the next ten months will be critical months. I believe if the people of Canada should now forget about shorter hours and go all-out to produce, not only could we maintain our present standard of living but we would have a much better chance of defending our country and playing our part in the defence of the free world. In my view the sooner we realize this the better will our chances of survival be. I may be pessimistic, but that is the way I feel about it. The barbarian is looking down upon us and grinning to himself. Great numbers of the peoples of the world are living under a police state. They do not know what the forty-hour week means. We are greatly outnumbered, our chief advantages being our industrial and productive capacity, our intelligence and the fact that we are a free people.
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
In my view members of parliament should tell the people of the seriousness of the international situation and now, while there is still time, urge them to make an all-out effort.
As reported at page 97 of Hansard for August 31, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) says:
In such circumstances there is bound to be sc temptation to settle back into complacency and' unconcern when events beyond our borders seem so complex and so intractable; to hope that we can enjoy immunity from both obligations and misfortunes. Such a course would be fatal in the face? of the present menace to our security and to our very existence; when meeting that menace we must make a defence effort far greater than we have ever attempted before in peacetime.
The minister was speaking seriously and sincerely when he made that statement. I am convinced that our only hope of preventing war and of surviving it, if and when it comes, is through harder work, longer hours and greater production.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like also to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on the account he gave us on Thursday of the Korean situation and also on the good work which he has done in his department and as a representative of this country at international conferences. Just how much better his work would have been had he been a member of a less reactionary government, only those of us who know him best can judge.
He told us on Thursday that Korea must be the centre of our attention these days. He said that it is there that the struggle with soviet communism has come completely into the open and its nature most clearly shown. He turned then to the events which had led up to the present crisis in Korea. Because it is important to all of us who will undoubtedly meet in our constituencies with many of those well-meaning people to whom the minister referred as idealists and who are so much concerned about the crisis facing Canada in this connection, even at the risk of repeating some of the things the minister said I propose to summarize again, the course of events.
Exactly one week after Russia's declara>-tion of war on Japan in August, 1945, Japan capitulated. One of the few places which Russia had been able to invade during that intervening week was Korea. Korea is ai country the size of Great Britain with ai population of thirty million people. It had lost its independence and for forty years had.

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy been a satellite of Japan. While the Russians were fighting down from the north during that week before capitulation the United States troops had landed in Korea and were fighting up from the south.
When Japan acknowledged defeat the question then arose as to which army should accept the surrender of the Koreans and this problem was solved by drawing an imaginary line across the country at the 38th parallel of latitude. That line roughly bisects the country with approximately 20,000,000 of the 30,000,000 people living south of the line but with much of the country's mineral and industrial wealth lying north of that 38th parallel.
Back in 1943 before Russia had intervened in the war the United Kingdom and the United States, after the Cairo declaration of December, 1943, declared jointly that in due course Korea should become free and independent. Russia joined with the United Kingdom and the United States in reaffirming that declaration at Potsdam in July, 1945. When the shooting was over the three powers met in Moscow and agreed in December, 1945, to establish a four-power trusteeship of Korea, the four powers being Great Britain, the United States, China and Russia.
It was agreed that in five years the trustees were to hand over Korea to a democratic, independent Korean government. To begin with, a joint United States-Soviet commission was to take over and set up in Korea a provisional government which was to cooperate with the trustees. This Moscow agreement was also signed by the Soviet union, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Then the trouble began. The Soviet union would accept no Koreans for the provisional government except communist members. In May, 1946, the attempt to set up a provisional government was abandoned. The United States then proposed a four-power conference on the question of Korea, but Molotov said, "No". The United States then brought the problem to the assembly of the United Nations and in November, 1947, the United Nations decided by forty-three votes, with the Soviet bloc being absent, that a Korean national government should be formed and that the armies of both rival powers should withdraw within ninety days. A United, Nations temporary commission was sent out to supervise the election.
By this time there was an iron curtain across Korea. The Soviet occupation authorities refused to permit the United Nations commissioners to cross the 38th parallel. The conflict from then on became not

a conflict between North and South Korea, not a conflict between the United States and Russia; it became a conflict between the Soviet union and the United Nations. The United Nations did the only thing they could do short of invading North Korea with United1 Nations forces, of which there were none. On May 10, 1948, they set about to hold elections in the south, leaving vacancies to be filled by elections in the north at a later date.
In the meantime the Soviet occupation forces had hastily formed a puppet government and appealed to the South Koreans to boycott the elections. In spite of that appeal and in the face of intimidation the fact is that 80 per cent of those in South Korea who were eligible to vote went to the polls. One hundred of the 300 seats were left vacant to be filled at a later date by members from North Korea.
Three months after that election, in August, 1948, the Soviet authorities of North Korea and their puppet government organized an election in North Korea. As is usual in those circumstances, communists and their friends were elected.
There were then two governments in the country, each claiming to represent the entire country. In December, 1948, the general assembly of the United Nations decided to recognize the South Korean government. Needless to say the Soviet bloc opposed this and refused to accept the decision of the majority. Both the occupying armies were withdrawn, the Russians from the north and the United Nations from the south. Only the United Nations commissioners remained, their task being to unify the country under a single democratic government.
The first report that that commission made to the United Nations on September 1, 1948, confessed that every effort to make contact with North Korea had been fruitless. It went on to say that the most courteous appeals for facilities that would permit a visit to the north and allow the initiation of the subject of unification had been without reply.
With the armies of their protectors no longer on the spot, the two governments sought guarantees of assistance from the rival powers. In March, 1949, the North Korean prime minister went to Moscow to sign a ten-year treaty of economic and cultural co-operation with the soviet, which made North Korea just as much a part of the communist family as eastern Germany. In January of that year Dr. Rhee, the prime minister of South Korea, signed an agreement

with the United States for the receipt of arms under the mutual defence assistance program.
This was the position on June 25 when the troops of the north, plentifully armed with up-to-date Russian weapons, advanced across the 38th parallel. A republic of Korea existed with a government in control to the south of the 38th parallel. It had been established after the holding of free elections, supervised by a United Nations commission, in which it had been intended that North Korea would take part. Two-thirds of the population lived in the area administered by this government. It was recognized as the lawful government of Korea by the United Nations general assembly, by the United Kingdom and eleven other nations. It had an agreement with the United States for the provision of arms.
North of the 38th parallel was the government known as the democratic people's republic of Korea, a communist government, also claiming to be the lawful government of Korea. It had been established in the first place by the soviet occupation authorities who had refused to allow the ten million inhabitants of this part of Korea to take part in the May, 1948, elections held at the request and under the supervision of the United Nations. It was recognized only by the Soviet union and members of the soviet bloc. It had a ten-year agreement for economic co-operation with the Soviet union.
There was also in the country the United Nations commission on Korea. Its principal task was to resolve the differences between the two governments in order to bring into being a united democratic Korea.
As soon as Washington heard of the fighting on the morning of June 25, the United States authorities asked for an emergency meeting of the security council, which was held the same afternoon. Every one of the eleven members, except the soviet delegate, turned up. They were the United Kingdom, United States, France, China-still represented by the Chiang Kai-shek government-Norway, Cuba, Egypt, Ecuador, India and Yugoslavia. By nine votes to zero, Yugoslavia abstaining, the security council called for an immediate ceasefire. "This action constitutes a breach of the peace", the council told the world, which had already reached that impression. The council went on to demand the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all North Korean forces to the 38th parallel. Then, in what may prove to be a historic passage, it called upon all members of the United Nations "to render every assistance to the United Nations, and to refrain from giving assistance to the North Korean authorities."
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
It was in accordance with these instructions that United States Superforts went into action in far-away Korea and the Royal Navy placed its services at the disposal of General MacArthur. Canada and other members of the United Nations came forward with offers of help. We are all in full accord with the action taken by the United Nations in its attempt to call a halt to communist aggression. As was said in this chamber by a number of members last spring, it is very encouraging indeed to know that the free nations of the world may learn to co-operate with one another in providing some measure of collective support for the defence of freedom and the maintenance of peace.
Ever since the first world war and the old league of nations we had been paying lip service to an international police force armed to restrain aggression and to establish the rule of law among nations. In sheer self-defence of our way of life we are now driven to making a beginning at providing for the United Nations the military forces that were visualized in the charter. It is easy to be critical of the shortcomings of the United Nations in' its handling of the Korean and other inters national situations. The United Nations Organization has probably gone as far and as fast as its constituent nations would permit. This ideal of creating one world in which all nations can live in peace with one another, or even the basic purpose for which the United Nations was established, that of maintaining peace and preventing wars, is difficult to achieve under any circumstances. It is particularly difficult to achieve when one nation, and that one of the most powerful military nations of the world, together with its satellites sets out to conquer the world, and to conquer it without the slightest regard for any rules of the game and by whatever means may serve its purpose.
That is the situation in today's world in which the United Nations is seeking to function. Democracy as we know it, democracy with all its faults, is just as definitely engaged in the life and death struggle with communism today as if we were actually engaged in a world war with Russia. The fight is on for us and those who believe with us in democratic parliaments, democratic trade unions and all the other institutions that democratic peoples have evolved through the years. The conflict is for the survival of this particular way of life. The question that each one of us must ask and answer for himself is whether or not he wants a communist-controlled world.
No one who has even the most superficial acquaintance with communism doubts for one moment that the rallying call of communists the world over is the conquest of the world for communism. Do we want that kind of world, or do we want to salvage the best of

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy our democratic institutions and work for their improvement? Those forces in our society which have through the centuries sought to liberate the souls and bodies of men and women from slavery and oppression are today facing one of the most momentous crises of history. We are living in one of the most crucial periods of human history. Our success or failure in this crisis will determine whether civilization as we know it survives or whether we enter upon another of those dark ages such as have marked the course of human history in the past. We face in fact a twofold threat, first whether we proceed to annihilate one another in atomic warfare, and whether in surviving we survive in freedom or slavery of soul and body.
Two obligations rest upon the free people today. The first is that of preserving democracy and democratic institutions; not because of our belief that those institutions are perfect, but because we believe that under our democratic system we have the freedom and opportunities necessary for growth and improvement. The second is that of avoiding the catastrophe of another world war, whether it be atomic or any other type. Whether we can fulfil our first and second obligations at the same time is something that only history can tell. Certainly it is the hope and prayer of millions of people that the war in Korea is not the beginning of a general world war.
This, however, is also true. Repulsive as war may be, and costly as it may be in human lives and human suffering, there are some values in life greater than life itself. There are values for which men and women throughout history have been willing to lay down their lives. To meet the danger of a communist-dominated world we must be prepared to meet force with force whenever force is the means used by the enemy, as was the case in Korea. As a nation we must be prepared to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to fulfil our obligations, and to do our utmost to preserve our way of life.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) pointed out, we dare not rely on military preparation alone. Herbert Morrison, of the British Labour government, speaking in Manchester on July 2 said:
I sincerely believe that only by showing that the free democracies will take a stand can we hope to convince disturbers of the peace that aggression does not pay.
He went on to express in the following words the sound advice given to this house by the minister for external affairs on Thursday. He said:
While armed opposition is necessary in reply to armed aggression the path we and other like-thinking people mu-t follow is in removing the causes of
[Mr Noseworthy.]
communism, by alleviating the malnutrition and misery that affects so many millions of people, particularly throughout Asia.
While we can all congratulate this government on its action in recruiting and equipping a special force to be placed at the service of the United Nations, while we can congratulate the government on the example it has given to the rest of the world in offering to make that force available to the United Nations for service anywhere, we could wish that our government had shown more leadership in fulfilling the second requirement set forth by its own minister- that of removing the cause of communism both at home and abroad. The rising cost of living at home, the unemployment that faced thousands of our people last winter, the deplorable housing conditions under which our people have been suffering for years, the profiteering that is taking place today with government acquiescence, the lack of adequate protection against sickness and old age, are all factors which in this country contribute to the spread of communism and which it is the responsibility of the government to remove.
In the international sphere this government's refusal to support the food and agriculture organization's plans for distributing food to needy people, its opposition to the United Nations proposal for international action to maintain full employment, and the insignificant contribution made so far by Canada to plans for economic aid to the underdeveloped areas of the world, are all illustrations of the failure on the part of this government to meet the urgent need for constructive action in that sphere. It is our failure to meet the challenge of communism on all fronts at home, and to show that democracy can do in reality what communism merely promises to do, that encourages the spread of communism in this country. It does more than that. The presence of want and injustice in a land of plenty and freedom creates a greater sympathy for communism among many Canadians who are not communists than is warranted.
Today Russia and the other communist countries dare not reveal to the world the actual conditions under which their people live. Nor do they dare to let their people know the conditions under which we on this continent live. They are obliged to keep knowledge of themselves from the rest of the world, and knowledge of us from their people by surrounding themselves by the so-called iron curtain. We have only their promises and little factual information about the condition of life in the iron curtain countries. Were we more aggressive in sharing with all our

own people, and with the needy in every part of the world, the abundance we can produce in this country, communism would have little appeal to Canadians. As it is today we have thousands of Canadian citizens confused in their thinking regarding the promises of communism, partly through lack of information regarding communism and partly through our failure to provide a standard of living for our people that we are capable of providing.
Many thousands of Canadians, for example, signed a petition to abolish the bomb. Thousands of Canadians signed that petition in good faith and from a sincere desire to maintain peace. Little do they know of the efforts that have been made by the United Nations to secure the abolition of the bomb upon the only conditions its abolition could possibly be achieved, that of United Nations control and adequate inspection. Little do those people know the ends to which Russia has gone to frustrate all those efforts made by the United Nations. I want to see the bomb abolished, as does every other member in this house, and I am sure every good Canadian, for that matter. We want to be sure that present stocks are destroyed in Russia as well as elsewhere, and that measures are provided to make sure that no secret manufacture of the bomb can be undertaken anywhere. More than that, I am sure we would all be happy to see an effective disarmament program in effect throughout the world to render any war, atomic or otherwise, impossible. We must, however, take into account the kind of world in which we are living today. Certainly it would be evidence of nothing but weakness on the part of the democracies to disarm themselves of atomic or other weapons until democracy's greatest enemy is prepared to co-operate with the United Nations for the prevention of war.
Many of these people to whom I have referred are also requesting that the Korean situation be settled by a process of conciliation. I, in common with other Canadians, prefer to see any dispute, either domestic or international, settled by conciliation wherever that is possible rather than resort to force. Here again it would merely be a sign of weakness to subject ourselves to the conciliation of our dispute solely on the enemy's terms. Aggression must learn that aggression does not pay. To meet the challenge of communism on all fronts and to preserve our democratic way of life we require sacrifice, just as every cause worth defending has always meant sacrifice. We must first make democracy work at home so efficiently that our people will feel amply justified in making the necessary sacrifices. Nor must those sacrifices fall entirely or
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy even largely on those who enlist for services abroad and their families. Business, agriculture and labour must all bear their share. These together with our press, our radio, our churches and other great national organizations have a responsible role to play in what Dean Acheson calls total diplomacy. All must agree to concert their efforts in this one overriding task. The task will not be easy. Miss Dorothy Thompson, in writing for the American people a few days ago on the inroads which communism has made in Asiatic countries, said:
We have already lost Asia. Stalin has not won it. He wants us to win it for him.
Whether or not the democracies have yet lost Asia may be a debatable point. Certain it is that unless great care is taken we shall lose it to the communists, and we could still lose it even if we won a military victory in Korea.
On that point I should like to quote a brief passage from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, on Thursday, August 17. The article has this to say:
It is clear that the mass of Koreans-whose division into north and south is temporary and artificial -have not welcomed the Americans as "liberators." On the contrary, it is certain that a vast majority of them see the Americans as interlopers and imperialists. Russian propaganda to that effect has been dinned into their ears and, quite evidently, has inspired the north Koreans to fight with great enthusiasm. According to Tokyo reporters, counterpropaganda from American or UN sources is not just ineffective-it doesn't exist. The Russians are not being answered. An American correspondent in Tokyo said on the air the other night that he and his colleagues had given up in "disgust" asking general headquarters what its end military objective was. As for the political aims of the United Nations in Korea, they have never been defined.
The editorial goes on to say:
It would be perfectly natural, then, for the Koreans to assume that the sole purpose of the Americans is to restore the Syngman Rhee government at Seoul. They know that this regime was corrupt and oppressive, treating its political prisoners with harsh brutality, and that it failed to carry out promised land reforms and other economic improvements. Can anyone be surprised, then, that the Korean masses have failed to greet the Americans with garlands of flowers and hymns of praise?
The west, and that means chiefly the United States, must offer the Asian peoples a program and a vision just as heart-warming as communism is supplying.
It is that point that I should like to call to the attention of the minister and, through him in his office as our representative at the United Nations, to the United Nations. It will be much more difficult for the western world to sell that program to the east than it will be for Russia to sell her program. The experience of western capitalistic imperialism which Asiatic people have had in the

The Address-Mr. Hees past has not been such as to inspire confidence in western policies. Somehow, if we are not to turn Asia to communism and if the blood shed in Korea is not to be shed in vain, we must find some way of undoing the evil that has been done in the past and of inspiring some degree of confidence in these people.
That will mean assistance in relieving hunger and oppression. We shall not gain the confidence of Koreans if they believe our purpose there is to restore the regime of Mr. Rhee. Nor shall we gain the confidence of the Chinese if they are led to believe that our interest in China is the restoration of Chiang. We must assist in the creation of economic, political, social and psychological conditions that will create and strengthen confidence in the democratic way of life. We must do what we can to help these people to help themselves, even to the extent of gifts of food where such gifts are necessary and to the extent of buying their products in order to enable them to pay for ours in turn, even to the extent that some of our own industries may suffer as a consequence. That will be a part of the cost that we must pay.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to strike a slightly more optimistic note. All is not lost nor is there any good reason why democracy should continue to lose ground to communism. The non-communist countries together have two-thirds of the world's population, three-fourths of the world's economic productive powers and a potential preponderance of the world's military powers. They have the highest standard of living. They have the greatest ability to help undeveloped areas to achieve higher standards of living. They have on their side the appeal of independence and national loyalties. They have the greatest attraction of all, human freedom. With these forces on our side, we can win if only we can succeed in showing eastern people, attacked by communism, that our object is to preserve for them that human freedom and independence and not to conquer them, to impose upon them our way of life or to exploit their resources for western profit.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on August 18 last I wrote to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and, as a member of our present reserve forces, stated to him why I believe that our forces today are totally inadequate for defending this country. I also stated specifically what I considered should be done in order to fill these deficiencies. As I have had, to date, no answer from the minister, I am going to state again the points which I made in my
[Mr Noseworthy.]
letter to him, in the hope that I may receive an answer on the floor of this house. In my letter to the minister I said the following:
A few days ago, our government authorized the formation of a United Nations brigade. This step was endorsed by the vast majority of Canadians, because it enables us to live up to our obligations as a member of the United Nations.
This is one important step. The next, and even more important, is to prepare an armed force so that we can defend this country against the kind of attack which could be brought to bear against our shores at any time.
The possibility of this country becoming the Belgium of the third world war is a very real one. The oft-avowed aim of the communists is world domination, and this can only be accomplished by the subjugation of the United States. Canada would be the pathway for such an attack, and the possibility of this country becoming a battleground at some future date is something which every Canadian must bring himself to face.
First, then, what kind of force must we be prepared to meet? The Korean war has taught us that when the communists attack, their forces are well trained, well equipped, well directed, and in sufficient numbers to maintain the momentum of the attack. If they attack our west coast, they will do so in large numbers, and with heavy equipment. The ease with which such an attack can be launched from a distance of many hundreds of miles was demonstrated by the allied landings in Sicily in the summer of 1943. In that invasion, the first Canadian division sailed direct from England to the Sicilian beaches, a distance of many hundreds of miles by water. An invasion force of this kind could easily be protected by the large fleet of super submarines-both Russian and German-which the communists are known to have.
What, then, have we available to meet such an attack if one should come? The present brigade which is being recruited for Korea is for service in other parts of the world. When that force leaves this country, the only force which will be available for repelling an attack is one brigade group, consisting of 4,500 men, or less than one-third of a division.
As was pointed out last night by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), this brigade group has no headquarters, and has no means of going into action as a formation until considerably further preparations have been made.
A force of that size could do no more than fight a brief delaying action against the size and type of force which could be landed.
In addition to the permanent brigade group which I have mentioned, we have our active reserve. As these reserve forces are up to no more than one-quarter strength, have very little equipment, and have never trained as complete battle formations, a minimum of six months to one year would be required before any reserve unit could take the field as an effective fighting force.
With what, then, do we plan to meet an attack if one should come? At the present time it is obvious that we have no plan, and equally obvious that, without one, we are living in a fool's paradise. I believe that we must recruit, train and equip a force which could be immediately available to lfieet and halt an attack, at least until American reinforcements arrive. The absolute minimum force which could do this would be, I believe, one armoured division, or an infantry division supported by an armoured brigade.

In order that such a force should be raised and maintained at the minimum cost to the taxpayer, I propose the following plan:
1st. The present recruiting and training plan should be expanded to include volunteers for a special reserve force, which would be known as "The Special Active Army Reserve".
2nd. Those who volunteer would receive training under active army conditions and rates of pay for whatever period the Department of National Defence considers necessary to bring them to a state of fighting fitness.
3rd. Legislation should be re-enacted to protect those who enlist by ensuring their release for necessary training or service by their present employers, without jeopardizing their job or seniority.
4th. Suitably located units of the present reserve army would be selected to organize 1st battalions or regiments, as an active army reserve, and continue their present units as 2nd battalions or regiments of the reserve army.
5th. Upon completion of the initial training period, personnel would join the active army reserve unit nearest to their home, and continue their training on a part-time basis while continuing to work at their regular employment.
6th. Terms of service would be for duty as and when required by the Department of National Defence, in any area. When on duty, active army regulations would apply, including casualty pensions.
7th. After the initial training period has been completed, a retaining fee of $30 a month for officers and $20 a month for other ranks should be paid, in addition to pay for intermittent training periods. This will help to attract battle-tried veterans, and make the service attractive to new recruits.
8th. Active army reserve battalions and regiments should be supplied with a full-time skeleton staff to maintain equipment, which should be procured at the earliest possible date, and in sufficient quantity, to place units on a war footing when ordered on service.
The initial training and equipping of this force would cost a considerable amount of money, but the overhead required to maintain the skeleton staffs and house the equipment, plus the yearly compensation, would make available an effective defence force at a minimum cost, and ensure its readiness on very short notice. The fact that this force would be considered as an integral part of our first line defence would have a strong appeal to the best type of fighting soldier, and the retaining fee when not on full-time duty would be an excellent drawing card for new recruits. In addition to the army, there is no reason why the plan I have outlined could not be applied to the navy and the air force in the same manner as to the army.
This is the only way in which we can prepare ourselves to repel armed aggression against this country if it should come. It is also our best insurance against being attacked, because the only language which the communists understand is strength and preparedness. If we are strong and prepared, we are far less likely to be attacked than if we remain in the weak and vulnerable position we "are in today.
We can never permit a recurrence of what happened in the last war, when young men with little training and equipment were sent to Hong Kong, and as reinforcements to Italy and northwest Europe. Let us train and equip ourselves now before it is too late.
I am submitting this plan for preparedness to the government, as a veteran of the last war, as a member of the present reserve army, and as a Canadian who wishes to see his country remain free. I sincerely hope that the Minister of
The Address-Mr. Hees
National Defence will see fit to put this plan, or some better plan, into operation before world events catch up with us.


Mr. Claxton:: Does the hon. member say he sent that to me?


George Harris Hees: I sent it to the minister, and his office acknowledged receiving it about ten days ago, stating that it would be brought to the minister's attention immediately. I have received no answer.


Brooke Claxton: I must say I got it in the form of a radio speech. I did not realize it was a letter. If it was a letter I apologize to the hon. member. I got it as a radio speech.


George Harris Hees: I sent a letter to the minister stating that these were opinions which I held and which I had expressed in a radio speech, which in no way minimized the suggestions I made. I said I would appreciate very much his comments, and that I sincerely believed this plan merited consideration by the government. I sent a copy of the same letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and received a prompt reply saying that this matter would be brought to the attention of the government. I am reciting these points at the present time because in my view this is an exceedingly important matter. I would like to see the government consider it and either produce a plan of this kind, or some better one-and I am not partial to mine- at the earliest opportunity.
On Tuesday last when the Prime Minister was reciting the series of events leading up to, and including, the rail strike, he told us that when the strike occurred the government was taken completely by surprise, as he believed everybody was. Those were his words as stated last Tuesday and reported at page 13 of Hansard. He said the rail strike had caught the government completely by surprise because they had believed it could not happen here.
If that kind of thinking is applied to national defence, it will be a disaster. That such thinking does exist in the Department of National Defence was made evident by the minister's speech two days ago, when he outlined the situation as one completely in control, exactly as the country would wish it to be, and left the impression that no Canadian had anything to worry about.


Brooke Claxton: Nothing of the sort was said.


George Harris Hees: This is a matter of tremendous urgency. We are met here to hear from the government what plans they are ready to put forward for the adequate defence of this country-a defence which I believe has been demonstrated to be in a very shaky condition. I appeal to the Minister of National Defence

The Address-Mr. MacKenzie and the Prime Minister to lay before the house at the earliest possible moment adequate plans for the defence of this country.


Mr. H. A. MacKenzie (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne I realize that this is a special session of parliament called to deal chiefly with two urgent problems that concerned the government and people of Canada. As one of those problems has already been dealt with, I should like at this time to make a few observations respecting our foreign affairs policy, particularly as it applies to the situation in the Far East and the Korean fields.
I must confess I have been amazed at the hon. members who have been giving such expert advice on this subject. I am reminded of the old adage that says that the less a man knows about a subject the more he is inclined to speak about it. Keeping that in mind, and applying it to myself on this occasion, I shall be brief in my remarks.
I followed the address in the house last Thursday delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I have since read his speech as it is printed in Hansard. In my opinion he gave a comprehensive report of the Korean and Far Eastern situation of which I believe any reasonable man would approve. May I commend him for his frankness and his up-to-the-moment analysis of the situation in that quarter. In my opinion Canada is fortunate indeed to have a man of his character, diplomacy and ability in a position of such importance at this time of world crisis.
While I spent a little over two years in the Orient, it was not my privilege to visit Korea, although I did have some close contacts with the situation there. An American citizen whom I knew very well and who lived in China for many years and had married a Polish girl was engaged in the same branch of UNRRA as that with which I was associated. After a year with UNRRA he accepted a similar post with the United States government to do the same type of work in the Korean field. He left his family in China, and proceeded to that post. This man made several visits to Shanghai while I was there in 1947, and I had frequent talks with him when he came to China regarding the situation in Korea.
He claimed that conditions in Korea were quite similar to those in many parts of China. It was his feeling at that time that it was a serious mistake to attempt to divide Korea into two parts. The Koreans are an oriental


race, having many of the same characteristics, including skin, hair and other features, as the Chinese. Their background is chiefly from that origin.
Korea is a comparatively small country which was taken over by the Japanese about forty years ago. The Japanese virtually owned it for the last thirty-five years. Japan was master, and practically made slaves out of the Koreans, exploiting them in every possible way. At the conclusion of the war the army commands, chiefly those of Russia and the United States, divided Korea into two parts, the northern and southern sections. I believe that division was made at the 38th parallel, with the Russians being given jurisdiction in the northern area and the United States in the southern. It should be remembered that the northern part contains large areas of rough country. While it is greater in extent, the south has approximately twice the population of the north. I believe early in 1948 free elections were held, and two separate republics were formed. That was a great mistake as few people cou'ld see any good reason why Korea should be divided into two parts. If that country had been given its freedom as one republic war probably would have been avoided.
However, that is water under the bridge and the problem now is how to deal with the situation that faces us today. After the election of 1948 Dr. Syngman Rhee was chosen as the first president. He had been a nationalist patriot who had fled Korea almost 30 years before and resided in the United States during that time. He had made an attempt to set up some form of government in the United States claiming to represent Korea. He was reactionary in character.
With a few of his loyal lieutenants he ruled South Korea with an iron hand and put literally hundreds of people in jail simply because they objected to or criticized his government. He became so unpopular that in May of this year he was defeated in parliament and was unable to get sufficient support to carry on. It is not hard to realize why the South Koreans have not supported the armies during the present war as was expected and have left the United States to fight the battle alone to a large extent.
It is true that as members of the Atlantic pact we must be prepared to fight aggression anywhere and must go to the aid of the armies fighting in South Korea as quickly as possible. In this connection Canada will do her full share. But we might as well face

the facts of what we are up against in Korea. The government there was not satisfactory and the Kremlin capitalized on that fact in a big way. The fight there will be long and arduous but there is no question about who will eventually win.
I should like to say a word with regard to the situation in Formosa and the China field. The minister of external affairs stated in the house a few days ago, if I got it correctly, that in his opinion the greatest danger of outbreaks similar to that which has occurred in Korea was in Germany, Iran and Indo-China. We must be prepared for such emergencies. While I am aware that that situation exists, it is my opinion that the greatest danger, one that might well lead to a world war, is to be found in Formosa.
I am familiar to some extent with the situation there as I spent two years in the China field. I have references here to the work I did in China by the director-general of the United Nations relief and rehabilitation organization in Washington, D.C. I have another reference by a colonel who was the inspector-general and investigator at that time. I have still another reference from the China office. I am reluctant to put these on the record but I must say that I am happy to have them. In fact I have one framed and hanging above my mantel at home.


An hon. Member:: Put them on the record.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The story of Formosa is a sad one. For 50 years that country was in the hands of the Japanese who exploited its people the same as they had exploited the people of Korea. The people there are Chinese in origin. We had 15 regional offices set up in the China field to help rehabilitate the war-ravaged and devastated areas in China, and Formosa happened to be one point where such an office was set up. It has a population of about 7 million people. I recall that figure because it happens to be about one-half the population of Canada. In the Cairo agreement it was specifically mentioned that Formosa was to be returned after the war to the Chinese republic. The Japanese knew that quite well and after V-J day they left Formosa and went back to their homeland.
The president of the Chinese republic, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, appointed General Chen Yi, a personal friend, as governor of Formosa. He was received with great acclaim when he arrived there. For many years Formosa had been noted for its exports of sugar and fish. This fish was canned there with Formosan labour and exported.
69262-12i
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie We used to hear complaints on the Pacific coast about cheap fish, and much of it came from Formosa. Pineapples were also exported in considerable volume. The Japanese had industrialized the country in a large way.
Then the Japanese left and General Chen Yi took over and he brought along a few of his war lords. I know this is not very palatable, but the facts of the situation should be outlined. The first thing General Chen Yi did was to expropriate the best land on the island, and there was considerable fertile land there. He exported the sugar and other commodities that were produced and within six months the people were literally starving. They asked General Chen Yi to give them something to eat. After all, while the Japanese had exploited them they had given them something to eat. The general would not do that. He sent over to the mainland and two battalions of storm troopers were sent over by the nationalist government and they literally massacred from 12,000 to 15,000 of the inhabitants because they had protested over not getting enough to eat.
Eventually General Chen Yi was recalled and he went back to the mainland to fight with the nationalist troops. When the nationalist government was driven off the mainland it was said that the general had been collaborating with the communists and the report is that eventually he was shot. But the damage had been done. The people there were quite antagonistic and many of those who were sent down there under the rehabilitation program came back and reported that the feeling in Formosa was quite anti-nationalist. Many of the people there were not ready to back the nationalist government in China.
It is said that if we had supplied that government with munitions and arms and equipment this situation would never have, developed. That statement has been made in Time and Life magazines many times. As a matter of fact if you look up Newsweek of last September you will see a fairly good account of the mistakes that were made in connection with Formosa. I would not say that the nationalist government was not backed. I think we backed it in a rather substantial way. So far as the UNRRA program is concerned we sent over there over $600 million of supplies that had a high commercial market value. Those supplies were distributed for the purpose of rehabilitating the people and to try to restore them to a normal way of living. Those supplies were under the control of the nationalist government. After all, the CNRRA organization was appointed by the nationalist government and

The Address-Mr. MacKenzie they had control of the distribution, and allocation of supplies. We supported the government there in their efforts to help the people. As a matter of fact, the UNRRA program was designed as a young Marshall plan. It was a preliminary plan to assist the people to get back to a normal way of living.
In September 1947, big headlines appeared in English and Chinese newspapers to the effect that Canada had advanced a credit of $60 million to China. It was further said that the credit was to be utilized in the purchase. of Canadian Mosquito bombers. Of course that was propaganda. When I came home I looked up the records. I found that Canada had provided a loan of $60 million to China but that not too much of it had been expended on war munitions and supplies. I believe the amount so spent was in the neighbourhood of $17 million, and they did not take all the loan but only something over $50 million. A very small portion of the loan has been repaid.
The United States provided them with large amounts of supplies. When I came home I reported to Washington and talked to officials in the department of the secretary of state. We discussed the situation in China and they asked me where the communists got their supplies. I said, "You have sent them plenty of supplies; up to date you have sent them over $2 billion of supplies." While they would not admit that, they said they had sent a very large amount of supplies. In any case, they sent them large quantities of supplies of all kinds. I claim that the nationalist government could not possibly be reinstated unless, you took over the whole organization. The people of Canada, the United States and the other nations were not prepared to do that. There is an old adage that if you enter into a family quarrel the first thing you do is unite the family. That could not easily happen in a country as large as China.
Therefore I claim that they had every possible support and they were not able to make a success. I must conclude-and I think Canada, the United States and the western powers must also agree-in that we backed a feudalistic, corrupt, depressed, dying regime in China that could not possibly be reinstated no matter what one did. I do not think it is within the realm of possibility to do so.
I was quite disturbed at a newsreel I saw when I went to the theatre the other night. General MacArthur was being received in Formosa by Chiang Kai-shek and Madame Chiang. Apparently they were seeking a lot of publicity. They showed the arms and the forces there. My view is-and I think this
iMr. MacKenzie.]
is one of the great dangers

that if you attempt to reinstate that regime it would be disastrous.
Another point that I want to emphasize at this time is the Cairo declaration. Formosa was to be given back to the Chinese republic. It was a part of the former Chinese regime and was to be restored. You find a situation today that is rather confusing. Great Britain recognizes the present communist government of China which controls practically the whole of China with the exception of the island of Formosa. According to the declaration that was signed by Mr. Churchill as one of the signatories, Formosa should be restored to the Chinese republic. You have the United States virtually recognizing the Chiang regime. I say that if the communists attack Formosa you will have a most complicated situation that could easily lead to a world war. I want to bring that point home. I am quite convinced that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is well aware of the situation and much more conversant with it than I am. Nevertheless the matter gave me some concern, and while I hesitate to do so, knowing the situation and something about the problems over there, I could not be fair with myself if I did not say something about the matter in this House of Commons.
Let me cite the case of Manchuria. It has been claimed in the house and elsewhere many times that the communists do not make mistakes, that the communists have planned all these moves, that they know what they are going to do and where they are going. I am not so sure about that. One of the big mistakes they made was in stripping Manchuria. In 1945 they stripped Manchurian industrial plants in a large way and took the machinery to Russia. Some of it is still rusting in Russian fields because they had no plan to utilize it. By doing that they have antagonized a great portion of the Chinese people and have created a very bad feeling among a lot of them.
I wonder how many people in this house know anything about hunger. I question if there is anyone in the house who knows anything about hunger, privation, want and misery. I do not think there are very many people in Canada who do. Can you understand why these people have been lured into the Russian camp? It is quite easy to understand. People who have been there tell me that after the first agony of hunger is over you are in such a depressed state that you do not care what happens to you. You have no heart to do anything. Therefore in the main these people had nothing to lose. The communists came and said that they were going to give them a better standard of living,

something better than they then had, and it is quite easy to understand why the people accepted the communist promises. However, the communist plans and promises have not materialized and the people are quite dissatisfied today. Now they are looking for something that will help to build them up and give them the high standard of living which they do not now have. The people are not happy.
Whether or not you agree with me, let me say that the people of China are deeply religious. They are pagan, if you like, but they are religious, and they will not accept the communist theory as it is proposed there and perpetuated in other places. I know that I have not much support in the house for what I am about to say, but that does not matter. I think we made the greatest mistake in our life when we left them to their own resources. We buried our heads in the sand and said we would have no contact with them at all. We played right into the open arms of Russia. In my opinion there is no question about that. Therefore I think that one of the great dangers would lie in the rehabilitation of the corrupt and discredited nationalist regime. That must not take place again. There is also the danger of all-out war with China. I think it can be avoided. I think it would be a most disastrous event and one of the great blunders of diplomacy if we provoked and developed such a situation that we had a complete outbreak of war with China. The picture is not bright, but it certainly is not hopeless. My time is about up, but I want to say that there is no one in this house who is more aware of the dangerous threat of communism than I am. We must face the situation courageously. We are up against a ruthless enemy who will stop at nothing. I am, and I am sure you are, confident of the outcome. It is my opinion that we are today facing the most serious and critical time in our history. But guns alone will not cure communism. We must bring relief and rehabilitation, as well as be prepared to the hilt to fight the most ruthless enemy we have ever known.
The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) closed his speech with a little poem. He probably established a precedent that could become a bore. I believe this poem is one that was repeated on one occasion by the former prime minister. It is as follows: Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold.
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold;
And to the presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?" The vision raised its head, And, with a look made of all sweet accord,
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so," Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee, then, Write me as one that loves his fellow-men."
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night It came again, with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed;
And, lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, foreign policy and that which cannot be divorced from it, namely defence policy, are usually evolved on the basis of calculated risks. That is easy to understand, for one cannot possibly hope to take care of every contingency which may arise. What we therefore hope for is that the calculations are based on the best and soundest judgment.
I share the fear of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) that the United States has made an error in policy with regard to Formosa; and it is right and proper that we should consider that policy here because we are going to be directly affected by it either as a close neighbour and a good friend of the United States or else, of course, at the security council.
I have consistently taken the position that our policy with regard to China should be directed toward keeping that country neutral in either a hot or a cold war. I do not deceive myself by thinking that we can secure an ally in China. But I am not yet convinced in my own mind that China is thoroughly in the grip of the Soviet union. I find it hard to believe that the Chinese people will become a willing tool of the Kremlin. After all, they are members of an ancient and a proud nation. I may be wrong, but I do not think that they will be content to suffer under the yoke of soviet domination. If the policy of the western world then should be directed to keeping China neutral as far as possible, I say again that an error has been made in American policy towards Formosa; for that policy seems to have been tailored with the idea of antagonizing China; and we may be involved.
I think that the United States took one of the biggest gambles in all its history last June when it decided to try to isolate Formosa from the civil war which had been raging on the mainland. Unfortunately, there may have been an element of bluff about this gamble because I doubt very much whether, if the

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
Peiping regime decided to take Formosa by force, the United States has adequate vessels or troops on hand to repel an invasion. In international affairs it is always a mistake to place yourself in a position where your bluff may be called.	.
There is a fear afflicting not only Asians but also many in the western world that the United States, while it is ostensibly defending Formosa, is in reality defending Chiang Kai-shek. There is a fear-and there is a basis for that fear-that there may have been another orientation of policy on the part of the United States. The reason for that we need not enter into here. I think most of us are familiar with the stresses and strains of American politics. We are concerned, however, with the net result.
I was discouraged by the visit of General MacArthur at the beginning of August to Chiang Kai-shek. I think that visit merely added fuel to the flames of fear which already obsessed many Asians about the policies of the west towards them. Not only was the visit misguided but what was even worse-and I do not know whether this was done with or without the consent of the state department-not long afterwards not only was advice given to Chiang Kai-shek from General MacArthur's headquarters but also supplies were sent. We had the extraordinary situation, a few days ago, of General MacArthur-whom I regard at this moment not so much as an American general but as a general in command of the United Nations forces, which include Canadian forces, so he has some responsibility to Canada-trying to make policy in the Far East.
That was a blunder which, of course, the soviets are going to capitalize on to the very limit. The pity is that American blunders in the Far East have been so much worse than their crimes. They have that advantage over the Soviet union. The Soviet's crimes against humanity have been unforgivable. But there is shared by many responsible observers the fear that the United States once again is becoming entangled in Chiang's ambitions; and if that is going to happen, then obviously the United States is going to play the role which the Soviet union desires to see it play.
It is one of the aims of the Soviet union to isolate, as far as possible, the United States from its friends and allies. I am certain that it will not succeed in doing so. Nevertheless, the policy with regard to Formosa has perhaps estranged to some extent the people of India and has certainly made the position of the United Kingdom more than uncomfortable. The United Kingdom has recognized the Peiping regime, and now it
tMr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]

sees its best friend and benefactor apparently aiding those who are opposed to it. The predicament then in which the British government finds itself is easily recognized. But we know what the policy of the Soviet union is. We know what they would like to have us do, and I do not think any of us is going to be lured into such a position that we shall desert the United States. It is only right, however, that the United States should know clearly and unequivocably what our position is.
Discussing the possibility of a red attack on Formosa, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent this afternoon said that it would complicate matters. That was a notable understatement. I can imagine few contingencies more dreadful, because I think that today the potentialities of the Formosan situation are much more dangerous than those in Korea. I believe that Russia would ask for nothing more than that the United States should be embroiled in a war with the Chinese government. That would suit Russian policy admirably, and unfortunately the Americans seem to be playing the role according to Russian desires.
I do not share the fear of many that Russia is at this moment prepared on its own part for active aggression. Russia does not need to indulge in aggression so long as it can get others to do its fighting for it, as in Korea, as might conceivably happen in a moment of tragedy if war were to result between the United States and China, as might happen if non-government members in Indo-China staged a revolt, as might happen today in Greece if the Bulgars carried even further their sporadic raids across into Grecian territory, as might happen today in Germany where in the east there are many Germans only too willing to play the part of Russian puppets and perhaps attack the west. In that case, if we were to defend all those danger spots by going to war, we should find ourselves so weakened and so enfeebled, while the Soviet union itself remained strong and powerful, that the fate of the western world would be precarious. For that reason, if for none other, I welcome the fact that Formosa is going to be presented to the United Nations, and that the United Nations will decide as to what shall be done there.
I agree completely with my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when he suggests that one of the best things which could be done would be the ejection from Formosa of Chiang Kai-shek. I need not dwell at all upon the demerits of that late ruler of China. The hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) did an admirable job on them this afternoon; but I am certain

that much tension would be relieved if Chiang Kai-shek could be removed from Formosa, and certainly tension will be relieved when the matter comes before the United Nations, and when the United States accepts the advice of that body.
The situation as regards Korea of course is obviously different. There can be no question in the minds of any of us as to the cor-rectitude and the rectitude of the action which the United Nations is now taking. Here was a clear case of aggression, and it was one which if collective security had reality had to be stopped. The United Nations working together have set up police action to stop it; and while today the news seems a little brighter than it has in the past few weeks, nevertheless I do not think we should take too much comfort from it, for I suspect that the operations there will last many long and weary months.
As has been pointed out by other speakers, we made blunders in Korea, blunders which have cost us dearly, as we have made blunders in other Asian areas. We supported the forces of reaction. We supported exiles whom their countrymen had almost forgotten. We supported collaborators of the Japanese; and although our motives were good, the political effect was serious.
The Japanese owned altogether some 80 per cent of the wealth of the island when they were thrown out. In North Korea, the industrial area of the country, the Russians took over the plants, took over the factories, organized and unionized the workers, and gave them the hope that so many Asians today are looking for, namely, the hope of a better living. In South Korea, unfortunately, those who eventually got control of the land were the very collaborators who had worked with the Japanese; and as history shows, those who possess the wealth of a nation very rapidly become its rulers. In that case, then, we need not be unduly surprised if the troops of South Korea have not shown the same enthusiasm as have the troops of North Korea in recent battles.
We know what we are fighting against. There can be no question, no shadow of a doubt about that. We are fighting against soviet aggression, soviet imperialism. What is perhaps more important, I wonder how many people know what we are fighting for. Few of the Asian people know what the western world is fighting for in Korea. They have been given the Russian side of the story. Mr. Malik, while he was chairman of the security council, directed all his speeches to Asia. He did a far better job on propaganda in many ways than we did.
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
I refer to the remarks of my leader the other day when he told us that he had listened to those broadcasts over the Mutual Broadcasting Company between alleged experts on this side of the water and reporters in Japan. I heard two of them; and on each occasion Mr. J. B. McGeachy from Toronto was the Canadian member of the board. Each time he asked this question: "What are we fighting for?" and each time he got no answer, or something which was completely and utterly unsatisfactory. I assume that we are not fighting of necessity to put Syngman Rhee back where he was. I assume we are not fighting to put the collaborators back in the position of power which they occupied. I hope we are fighting for the freedom of the people of Korea and, if possible, for a united Korea, for the chance of Koreans to live their lives and to decide on their own form of government, and to live in freedom and with some security. I think that is the aim of the United Nations. If it is the aim it has not yet been sufficiently publicized throughout Asia.
In his speech the other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearsoij) used these profoundly true words, as reported at page 90 of Hansard of August 31:
Military strength is absolutely necessary, of course, but it must be supplemented by imaginative economic and social programs if the march of communism as a social and economic doctrine is to be halted.
That is true. This is not the first time he has uttered such words, nor is it the first time that I have, but unfortunately while he states that is the policy of his government, I have yet to find out what the government proposes to do or what it has done to implement that lofty aspiration. I heard only a faint echo of the applause which he received and I see only his words in Hansard. The time has come to put into practice these things which he says should be done.
A few days ago the British Labour party published a document whicjh eventually may become official, in the sense that it may become British governmental policy. It was a world plan for mutual aid, with the intention of attacking poverty throughout the world no matter where it exists. The hope is that all free peoples will contribute to this plan in an attempt to raise the standards of living all over the globe, and by this most practical and concrete way combat communism. I still believe that bread and butter are more inimical to communism than guns ever will be. The purpose of this fund, plan, call it what you like, is to take the place of Marshall aid when it stops. Its purpose is to help those in the underprivileged areas to have roads built, bridges built, factories
176	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr, A. Stewart built and equipped and staffed with competent workmen; to irrigate lands so that crops may be raised, so that in turn the people might be fed. There is something in which I think we could play a noble and magnanimous part.
I refer again to a remark, a suggestion given by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to this house last year; and it is one which perhaps might save us yet from a sea of troubles. It was to this effect: that the Canadian government should enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom government to find out what that country needed from us in the way of foodstuffs and vital raw materials. Payments would be made in sterling. The first effect would be to guarantee our primary producers on the prairies and on the farms everywhere, in the logging camps and our fisherman also that there would be some market for the commodities which they produce or were able to sell on that market. Secondly, it would conserve the United Kingdom dollars which they still need. Thirdly, the sterling balances in London would not be frozen there as a debt of the United Kingdom to Canada, but they would be converted in turn into aid given to those underprivileged areas.
If we were to follow a policy such as that we would, I feel, kill several birds with one stone, and still carry out the policy which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) desires to see carried out, as I am sure do many of the rest of us. It will be argued, and has been argued, although not with much vehemence now, that our program is costly. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) told us the other night that taxes would have to be raised in Canada, and I think none of us have any illusions about the matter. Taxes will have to be raised, and taxes must be raised. But they have got to be raised with justice and equity.
The situation today among vast numbers of the working people is that the unseen tax of inflation is taking from them so much that if they are otherwise taxed directly by the government they will fall substantially below the standard of living which we should like to see in Canada. The government openly and willingly, under its own policy, has decided that this inflationary spiral shall be permitted to continue. Today, I believe, the index has reached almost 170. Inflation is taxing the incomes of the primary producers and the workers in this country without mercy.
If taxation is to be raised, as it must be, then I hope it wiP not be indirect taxation.
I hope it will be direct, so that we shall know what we are paying. I hope, too, that it


will not be levied upon the poorer-paid members of our community. But if, perchance, owing to the nature of the financial provisions which we must make, they must accept some share of it, then I think it would be wrong to tax them in the sense of their paying income tax. If they have to pay anything, then it should be done as it was done during the war, by way of compulsory savings. It would not be right to penalize the poorer members of our society any more than they are already being penalized.
There will be of course additional taxation on corporations. This year is going to be probably the best year, so far as profits are concerned, that Canadian corporations have ever experienced. They may even, I hope, be asked to pay excess profits taxes-and I hope they will be heavy. I say that because I see no reason why corporations, or others for that matter, should be allowed to make excess profits out of a national emergency. If there is an excess profits tax it will have to be based upon a certain period. That period might be 1940-1944, because I do not think corporations should be allowed to make any more out of this emergency that they did during the war.
I have spoken about inflation; and there are dangers associated with inflation, especially when we are trying to bring all our people together in an attempt to achieve a national aim. One of the dangers of the inflationary spiral is the renewed set of demands on the part of organized labour for higher wages. Who is there who will blame labour when they see how prices are going up all around them?
It is not unnatural for the Canadian worker to compare his income with that of his coworker on the other side of the boundary line, in the United States. I have been in the United States several times in the last two or three years. Each time I go I take the opportunity to go into the stores and the groceterias to see how prices are over there. By and large, with certain exceptions, the prices which the American workingman has to pay for those commodities he requires to live are lower than the prices his Canadian counterpart has to pay. Yet there is quite a disparity in the wages earned by the two groups.
In this connection I turn to the figures for 1946, the year following the war, and the latest figures I have been able to obtain for 1950. In the United States between 1946 and 1950 there were certain significant price movements. Wholesale prices over there increased by some 26 per cent in that time, whereas wholesale prices in Canada during the same period increased by 47 per cent. As one would expect, extending from the

increased wholesale prices, the cost of living was affected. However in the United States it was up only to the extent of 20 per cent while in Canada it was up by 33 per cent. Let it be remembered that in Canada wages have not kept pace with this increase.
The real wages of American workers increased in that period by some $2.46 a week whereas the real wages of Canadian workers have increased by only about $1.25 per week. It may be argued that in those four years we saw the greatest increase in wages that Canadian workers had yet received. That is true; I will not deny it. The average hourly earnings of a man in 1946 were about 70 cents whereas in 1950 they were $1.02, or an increase of roughly 45 per cent.
But when we say that the income of the wage earner increased we must remember that unearned income also increased. The profits of the 450 corporations mentioned in the Bank of Canada statistical summary increased altogether by some 66 per cent. If there is going to be justice in this country in a common effort, then the taxation of corporations must be such as to let the average individual feel that unearned income is not being given preference over earned income.
Along with that it is in the opinion of our party essential that price controls be reinstituted, not in the sense of the rigid controls mentioned today by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham), but in a much more selective sense than was necessary in the early days of the war. Not only should price controls be instituted for, let us say, the necessary commodities of life, but subsidies might also have to be granted.
The argument against that is that we lack the constitutional power. The question arises: Are we or are we not at war? To the legal mind it may be argued that our action in Korea is merely compliance with United Nations obligations on the part of Canada, and that technically we are not at war. However, I feel that the brigade going to Korea may see neither the difference nor the distinction in the legal technicality. That is a point which perhaps the courts might consider.
But if we are not at war, then according to the motions which the government is going to present to us, we are assuredly in a state of apprehended war, and certain action will have to be taken for the peace, order and good government of the country. I find it difficult to believe that any court in Canada or outside Canada would reject legislation if, in the face of apprehended war, this parliament decided that it would be advisable to reintroduce price controls and subsidies. I do not think
The Address-Mr. Poulin the constitutional question is a barrier today. I believe the real barrier is a lack of desire on the part of the government to institute these very necessary controls. This is all most regrettable because the people of Canada must have some protection, and they can have that protection only from their own democratically-elected government.
Whether or not we are concerned about the costs of an apprehended war, no matter how real the apprehension may be, we must not permit those costs to blind us to the fact that there is a great group of people in this country, our old age pensioners, our senior citizens, who still lack security-and security is the right of every person in a democracy.
I hope the coming appropriations will not be used as an excuse to prevent the removal of the means test, and some amelioration in the conditions of the older people in this country. The responsibility is that of the government. They will take the odium or they will take the praise. But I know that their share will be odium if they do not give protection to the people of Canada from an unseemly rise in the cost of living, by the institution of controls and the provision of necessary subsidies.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in offering to the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne the usual congratulations. I do so not merely because it is the custom but because I am convinced they have ably performed their difficult duty and shown they well deserve the confidence placed in them.
Canada is now facing a complex situation. Important and tragic events are happening thousands of miles from our coasts, for which we are in no way to blame. War rages all over Korea, a small country in Asia. The physical cause of this war lies in the fact that at the end of the world war, two great powers, both our allies, both interested in that part of the world, Russia and the United States, arbitrarily divided the territory of that country in two parts. This division, awkward, artificial and perhaps somewhat selfish, has resulted in the invasion of one section of the country by the other.
From the humane point of view, the invasion of South Korea by the people of North Korea might be regarded simply as a sort of brutal reuniting of two members of the same family

The Address-Mr. Poulin whose guardians had felt able to keep asunder in order to exploit them more thoroughly.
It would then be a civil war. In that case, why should we take sides in a family squabble? Should we not let the estranged brothers settle their differences in their own way? When civil war was raging in China, Canada did not meddle, nor did the United States.
But apart from the physical cause, political reasons over which Canada had no control contributed to bring about this war. Clever and well managed propaganda does much to show-and perhaps rightly-that behind the North Korean aggressor lurks the Russian bear, that it is a war of communist ideology against democracy and freedom. This is just short of saying that not only is Canada's territorial integrity endangered, but that the liberty, religion and way of life of her people are at stake. And we have to vote millions of dollars, take up arms, dispatch ships, airplanes, men, a special brigade in order to stem the advance of our communist enemy and help our allies who, in turn, will help us.
I am all for helping our allies, or avoiding isolationism. I agree too that we should fight communism. But how are we to go about it?
To take up arms against communism in a far-away land may be a fine thing; but it would have been much wiser to squelch it at home in the first place, to stifle its propaganda at the start to prevent its peddlers from travelling here, there and everywhere, going abroad for instructions in communist countries, and especially to deny them the right to stand as candidates for public office. It has been stated lately in this house that there are very few communists in Canada. However, in the last election, the communist candidate in Cartier received over 4,000 votes. That is why I should have been pleased if, during the last session, all communist activity in this country had been banned by an act of parliament.
Let us seek to bring happiness to all peoples; strive to give the destitute at least the bread they need to stay their hunger and brighten their outlook; offer the various nations the means to develop in accordance with the normal bent of their national, religious and cultural aspirations; help peoples to establish their economy in such a way that they will not always be the menials of a group of countries who enslave and exploit them, thus fostering feelings of hate and resentment. There we have a very

incomplete and imperfect account of means less costly and less inhuman than war and which, however, remain the first and best weapon against communism. By all means, let us help our allies in the Korean war. Still we might do well to examine the sequence of events at the time of the aggression. It might enable us to foresee at the same time what may happen in the future and, as a result, would help us to determine the attitude we will have to take now.
The aggression began on June 25. On June 27 the President of the United States ordered the protection and support of the South Korean government troops. It was only several hours later the same day that the security council recommended to the members of the United Nations to bring assistance to Korea. It is therefore undeniable that the United States took sides in this issue before receiving the order to do so from the security council. Anyone doubting this statement need only refer to page 268 of the July 1950 number of External Affairs to see that as the hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) admitted himself:
The United States government took this position on its own authority.
Can this not lead to serious misuse of the organization whose might and influence are exercised with such power among the United Nations?
It might be said that this first premature decision was timely, but who knows, should it happen again, that the same will hold true. In other instances the interests of the United States might conflict with those of the United Nations. What would happen then if a premature action were again taken? We would find ourselves in a dilemma and, because of the precedent, we would be compelled to carry on against our will, against common sense and against our own interests.
Today it is Korea, tomorrow it will be Formosa. What about Formosa, the defence of which is being prepared? There an attempt will also be made to save the wreckage of nationalist China in her last positions, those concerned having forgotten to defend her on the continent. Did not the commander-in-chief of the United Nations forces just state that an attack against Formosa would start a general war?
After Formosa, perhaps the Philippines, then Indo-China and so on. Nevertheless we shall go ahead because, as we are told, we are bound by our signature.

Instead of rushing headlong into the fight could not Canada have tried something else in order to help her allies? Could she not have brought pressure to bear by means of peaceful tactics?
It seems that nations must have a police force. Since when has the revolver been the only weapon used by the police in apprehending bandits, and would it be true that they must of necessity kill those over whom they want the upper hand? Is blowing on a fire the only way to put it out?
That is not what was indicated recently under other circumstances. In a book entitled "Canada and the United Nations", published by the external affairs department, one reads, on page 18, a number of general remarks from which the following extract is taken:
. . . the security council was the instrument in 1949 through which the international community dealt with three dangerously inflammable problems- Indonesia, Kashmir and Palestine. In most difficult circumstances, the security council managed in all three areas to bring an end to fighting when it occurred.
The most effective action taken by the security council related to Indonesia. When the year began, a major military engagement had been undertaken in Indonesia and it seemed that nothing but a trial of strength lasting over an indefinite period would bring a solution to the political problems of that part of the world. Before the end of the year, however, an agreement had been reached between the people of the Netherlands and the people of Indonesia which gives every evidence of providing a permanent basis of settlement.
Should Canada have taken such a stand it would have been no cause for surprise, since it would have been strictly in keeping with her obligations. I notice at page 241 in appendix 7 of the book from which I have just quoted a resolution carried by the general assembly regarding the essentials of peace. Canada voted in favour of the said resolution introduced on December 1, 1949. I now quote paragraph 11:
The general assembly calls upon every nation to settle international disputes by peaceful means.
Do you not think that that would be an excellent way of helping our allies? Some answer that it would have been of no avail; perhaps, but who can say? And further:
-in connection with three dangerously inflammable problems . . . where it seemed that nothing but a trial of strength would bring a solution-
Are we sure that what succeeded so well in 1949 would have been less efficient in 1950?
Again, some may say that it would not have been sufficient. Perhaps; but Canada can do more and I am in favour. I am not against
The Address-Mr. Poulin voting reasonable appropriations for defence, I am not opposed to voluntary enlistment, even on a large scale, as long as those Canadian soldiers remain in Canada. It would be very costly to send an expeditionary force to a foreign country mainly on account of the distances involved. Canada's financial resources are far from being inexhaustible. The $15 billion spent during the last war have had bitter consequences, as we are all aware. It is also well known that people in the low income groups feel more than others the brunt of economic depressions, which inevitably result from excessive spending.
Freedom is said to be priceless. Just the same it would be paying too high a price for it if we have to throw ourselves into an economic mess so great that it would be impossible for us to enjoy it. What would you say if the head of a family, in order to get his family out of the slum conditions in which they lived, would use all his savings to buy a sumptuous abode into which it would be impossible for him to move without depriving his family of essential things? He would certainly have paid too high a price for that liberty, because his family would not be in a position to enjoy it.
Our military defence must be organized at home. We have a vast underpopulated country with extended and widely separated coast lines; it is dotted with huge wastelands, including our large barren northland which an enemy could not easily reach, but which also could not be easily defended. Spanned by extensive waterways, of great importance to our economy and, in part, within easy reach of enemy submarines, Canada has some densely populated cities of strategic importance on account of their industries. These might have to be declared open cities, because they could not be adequately protected.
Our country, as I have just described it, must concentrate all its productive powers. I declare without fear that the skill of our trained soldiers, the strength of all our young men, the experience of all our grown men, the abilities of all our young women, the development of all our resources, all that is not too much to maintain in Canada a proper standard of living. Canada needs all those skills to ensure our own protection and to put us in the convenient and effective position of "armed and benevolent neutrality" which has so well served the cause of our common allies when practised by a powerful country which today does not seem to want to recog-

The Address-Mr. Poulin nize its timeliness and efficiency, and which is therefore turning its back so lightly on her past.
Would not the defence of our country be the surest and most practical way of helping our allies and neighbours, the United States?
It is planned to send a special brigade of Canadian soldiers to Korea or anywhere the government sees fit. I feel impelled to stand strictly against that for reasons already stated. We need those skills for the defence of our country, and it would be too burdensome for the Canadian people. Another reason, and not the least, is that this levy of volunteers would sooner or later bring conscription for service beyond our shores.
I believe the government have the best of intentions. I believe they are sincere when they speak of volunteers, and that they have no wish at this time to conscript our young men for service outside this country. However, when all the volunteers shall have been used up who will replace the dead, the wounded or the missing, especially if-as we may foresee-events such as are happening in Korea occur in several places in the world?
The lessons of the past, those learned by the Conservative government in the first world war, those learned by the Liberal government during the last war, prove that it is easy to decide how to start a war but that one is powerless to decide how to end it. Promises are forgotten, walls are broken down and the people have to pay for unconsidered and hasty decisions taken in the first enthusiasm and soon forgotten or denied in the heat of war.
The people of Quebec have stated in 1942 their attitude towards conscription. Even though they have not had any opportunity to further state their position since, we may rightfully assume they have not changed their minds.
Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to labour the point. I have expressed an opinion, at least I very humbly endeavoured to justify views which, I am aware, are not shared by the majority of members but are shared and upheld, I believe, by the majority of electors of the constituency of Beauce who have asked me to represent them in the parliament of their country.
I have dealt with a timely, thorny and ticklish matter. I have tried to speak in a calm, objective manner. I did not seek, and I was careful not to stir up any passions or drag in old grudges. When my constituents


read my humble speech, if they do so, they will find that I have spoken in this house, on this difficult occasion, with respect, dignity and frankness typical of the fair population of Beauce.
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, we have been called here to this special session to deal with two matters of great importance, the railway strike and the situation in Korea which, of course, involves considerations going far beyond Korea. The first of these matters has been dealt with, and we are in the midst of debating the second. I suppose it is not straining ordinary language to say that this is a matter of the greatest gravity to us. Perhaps if one uses the words "a matter of life and death" one is not exaggerating. Yet I believe anyone who was in this chamber this afternoon at three o'clock, and saw half the members absent, would have thought it was a strange commentary on the seriousness of the situation. I am not blaming those who are away. Perhaps they have the feeling that some of the rest of us have, that we are in the hands of a government which will pay no attention to the reasonableness of requests, and which will turn down a request proffered by all those who are free to express their views. What I really complain about is that, without the semblance of what anyone would call a reason of any kind-the only reason being the will of the majority and we know too well what that means - a request is turned down. The majority were not prepared to express their views, but were prepared to be absent today. On that, I have nothing more to say.
I come now to consider the grave problems which face us. We have the Korean situation and all that flows from it. We cannot, of course, discuss it without having in the forefront of our minds the question of Russia. But I suggest it would be desirable, even though we have Russia on our minds, that we do not allow ourselves to have Russia on the brain. Some wise remarks were made this afternoon by the member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) when he pointed to what I like to remind myself of, and what Mr. Churchill has often pointed out, that the Russians are not always so clever as we are inclined to think. They have their own difficulties. It is for that reason I deprecate our regarding war as already here. I deprecate statements such as the one made in this house last night that we are ninety per cent sure we shall have a war soon. Nobody knows that. I believe

the sensible words are the words which Churchill uses. I heard him in a broadcast just a week ago tonight in London. He says that we are in great danger, and although he did not add these words from Henry V then, I have no doubt he had them in mind:
Gloucester, 'tis true we are in great danger;
The greater therefore should our courage be.
What Churchill says is the practical thing. He says we may have, because of the atom bomb, some years of time; let us use them well in preparation. I suggest that that is the task of those of us who are here.
The member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) well said last night that we are a kind of liaison with the citizens of Canada. I think we have a particular duty to see whether we can rise to the heights of that great challenge at a time when certainly the danger is great. I think we should also remind ourselves that in preparing for war we should, in spite of the difficulties and disappointments, try to reach out for every prospect of peace. We must remember that even in the most absolute monarchy the consent of the governed is not wholly an illusion. After all, from time to time we read of sabotage and absenteeism. After all, what are these purges for? They do not have purges because everything in the garden is lovely. They have purges because they still have people who are regarded as disloyal. I suggest that, without relaxing every effort for military preparation, we should not omit these other things which may have an importance that is often hard to believe.
I should like to consider the military situation briefly. Last night the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) dealt with the Pacific situation. I have no further comment to make on that. It seems to me lamentable in many ways. With the tide of battle swaying uneasily and perhaps uncertainly as it is in Korea today I doubt if we feel happy that there is not a single one of our men on the ground there-I mean literally on the ground, apart from the air or the sea-to help those who are so hard-pressed. What I want to do this evening is to spend a few minutes in dealing with the Atlantic scene and western Europe.
I need not take time to remind you of the vast importance of western Europe to us economically, because that is our traditional market. If anything happened to western Europe, I mean anything irreparable, if their economy were destroyed, it could be most serious for us. "Serious" is hardly a strong enough word to use. I need not remind you either of the strategical situation. On that I shall endeavour to say a word or two later.
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
This summer I had the privilege of spending two days at Strasbourg during the meetings of the council of Europe. Briefly the council of Europe is a sort of parliament of Europe. It has no powers except powers of recommendation. It is made up of representatives, certainly in the case of England and I think in the other member countries, from all parties of the various parliaments of the countries represented on the council. It was interesting to be there, and to hear the discussions. The impression one brought away was of a people who were harried, oppressed and uncertain, who were in need of all the help that could be given. I was there when the Schuman plan was adopted; and one felt that while to us the Schuman plan, suggests merely the rationalization of iron and steel, to them in some strange way it seems to be a kind of new evangel, a kind of new gospel, which is going to enable them to heal, they hope, the age-old wounds of Europe and to come into a better day.
In that connection I should like to quote briefly, because it states what I have been saying and does so extremely well, from an article in Lloyd's Bank Review of July, written by an able English economist who, besides being skilled in economics, has a good deal of experience in government. He is reviewing this western European situation and he has this to say. This is quite a brief quotation but I think it goes to the very point at issue, and he sums up the situation which I think we ourselves have to face and which comes very close to us. No one who has been wafted across the Atlantic in one of the planes of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in a few hours can for one moment feel that Europe is any longer at a distance from us. We realize only too well what Wendell Willkie meant when he wrote "One World". Robbins, in this Lloyd's Bank Review, says this:
For the plain fact is that in the present or any probable future state of military preparation, the allies of western Europe, including Great Britain, are not likely to be able, unaided, to resist an invasion from the east-even if they were all to fight. It is not the military power of this group which, so far, has prevented the men in the Kremlin from letting their armies march ... it is the fear of the resources and power of the world beyond western Europe, which would inevitably be drawn into such a conflict.
And later he says:
It is, indeed, the central contention of this paper that, on the basis of the Atlantic pact, there has been achieved a grouping which, if developed and suitably consolidated, may yet arrest the tide of advancing barbarism and be a safeguard of peace and prosperity for as many years to come as it is sensible to think about. It is a grouping which can be sufficiently strong: it includes the main industrial power of two continents. It is a grouping within which we ourselves can wholeheartedly co-operate without fear of destroying existing connections . . .
182	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
It is a grouping, moreover, which corresponds to the main area of our spiritual solidarity: the United States, equally with Europe and the commonwealth, is now the repository of the great tradition.
Having said that, I should like to read a sentence or two from a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in June last. That follows directly on what I have just read you from Lloyd's Bank Review. Speaking of the North Atlantic pact, as reported at page 3189 of Hansard of June 5, 1950, he says this:
North Atlantic strategy cannot mean, and our agreement does not imply, a strategy of liberation after destruction and occupation. There could be no hope for Europe in that strategy because the next time there may well be nothing to liberate.
I might add to that that it fits in exactly with what I heard said in the very short time I was in France, namely that they were tired of being liberated. They are not looking for that again. If we wish them to preserve themselves, it can only be done by the United States, the United Kingdom and whoever else is ready being able to help them in time. And "in time" of course does not mean after they have been overrun.
This house has approved the Atlantic pact. As a matter of fact, we have not only approved it but we have patted ourselves a good deal on the back because we had a great deal to do, so we say-and I have no reason to doubt it-with the preparation of it. Yet I think we should do some searching of heart to see what it has really amounted to. I think it was Mr. Reynaud a former premier of France, who dismissed it rather summarily by saying that it was just talk, talk, talk. I suggest that we should look searchingly and ask to be informed fully as to just what is involved in it, as to just what the aims are, and just how far we have got in giving effect to the far-reaching aims.
In June last, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs made his speech, I think we all approved of what he said. The objectives were approved by us. But I think some of us had the feeling at that time-certainly I myself had it-that there was not quite enough sense of urgency. It was either then or in his speech the other day, I am not quite sure which, that he said that of course these are plans that it will take time to work out. Indeed I felt, in listening to him, that at the rate we are going it might take many months or even some years before the thing became very practical.
My hope is, and it is the sole purpose of my remarks tonight, to try to put it to the government that we in this parliament should be put in a position to know what the situation is before we are asked to vote money; that we


was because things needed stimulating; that was because industry was at a somewhat low level, the absolute antithesis of the situation which we have now. This is the final quotation that I wish to read:	*
With an economy at full production and employment, the only result of expanding money and credit is to raise prices without increasing production. At such a point commences the cumulative spiral of inflation with all its deadly consequences to the economy.
I suggest that those who made this decision seem to have forgotten September 12, 1939. It seems that this logic is irresistible. It seems to me that what I have read applies in the most inescapable manner to the situation of today. It seems to me quite clear that what has been done is exactly the opposite of what was considered to be the wise thing as set out at that time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak briefly and directly to the subamendment moved by our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I do so because that subamendment contains proposals which are of serious concern to many of the people I have the honour to represent. I refer to the proposals to secure some measure of economic stability at home and abroad.
I have found in travelling around my constituency since the house rose at the end of June that a great number of my constituents are concerned about this problem. They are concerned at home with-the question of rising prices and the inflationary spiral of rising costs. They are concerned with the effect it has on the thinking or, shall I say, the psychology of the people of this Dominion of Canada. Then, in addition, particularly since the advent of the Korean war, they are very much concerned that in addition to its military preparation for the defence of this country and in support of its pledges to the United Nations, -this government should do more at least to work in co-operation with the other nations for the development of economic stability in undeveloped countries.
I should like first to read the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the subamendment by my leader, so as directly to focus the attention of the house on these questions. The amendment of the leader of the opposition reads in this way:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to provide adequately for the defence of Canada and have failed to take steps to deal with inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, our leader, added the following as an amendment to the amendment:
by the imposition of price controls and the provision of necessary subsidies; we regret further

that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to include in Canada's defence program substantial economic aid for underdeveloped countries, for it is the opinion of this house that the spread of communism cannot be prevented by military action alone, but only by the provision, in addition, of all possible assistance to bring about social and economic progress in such countries.
As I said before, we in this group believe that our subamendment offers a program for the development of economic stability at home and abroad. The day before yesterday I listened with a great deal of interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and noted with satisfaction that according to several statements he made on that occasion he must agree with a great portion of the contents of the subamendment moved by our leader. I was very interested to note that, as reported at page 90 of Hansard, he said this:
They can be met and overcome, as indeed they are being overcome, by the initiative of the free world in many places, notably in western Europe; but they cannot be defeated by military action alone. Military strength is absolutely necessary, of course, but it must be supplemented by imaginative economic and social programs if the march of communism as a social and economic doctrine is to be halted before it reaches a point at which a military attack will commend itself to the members of the politburo as likely to succeed.
My point is that, unfortunately, we in the House of Commons have listened on several occasions to very similar splendid statements but, to date, we see very little action on the part of the government to use its influence in the United Nations and in the domestic field to give effect to those high-sounding phrases -phrases with which we absolutely agree. This government has not given support to the proposal for a world food pool. This government has not given ear to the proposal of the agricultural producers of this country and the agricultural producers of the free world with respect to the distribution of food in undeveloped countries. This government has not brought the attention of the United Nations to the necessity for investment in underdeveloped countries, and the necessity for low-interest loans and, if necessary, gifts of equipment and so on.
In our opinion nothing has been done to convince the people of Asia, the peoples in the undeveloped portions of the world, that we are concerned in their welfare, their economic well-being and their economic security. I suggest that, as a concrete demonstration of our integrity, plans should now be drafted by the government, and announced, for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of South Korea, when this incident is ended.
I know very well that relatively we are a small nation, in population; but I think this
The Address-Mr. Herridge government can use its influence and its prestige in the United Nations to urge immediately the necessity of drafting a positive program for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of South Korea, so that we can prove to these people that we mean what we say, that we realize the necessity of giving assistance to them and that we intend to support a democratic regime. Our policy in my opinion should be a policy of helping the people of Asia, particularly, to help themselves. There they have masses of manpower and masses of labour. Surely if we face the problem in a constructive way, in co-operation with our fellow nations in the United Nations, we can do something constructive to turn the tide in Asia.
While I do not intend to speak at length this evening, I should like now to make a few suggestions to which effect could be given immediately, without great delay or expense on the part of the government or the United Nations Organization. I believe we should be bringing students to the North American continent from Asia, in large numbers, to be trained in our universities, technical schools and other institutions of that type. We should be bringing those students here so that we shall have a larger corps of people in those countries who will be trained in the principles of democratic institutions and democratic administration. We should have large numbers who are trained in our industrial techniques, and even greater numbers trained in our agricultural practices.
I suggest that is a program to which immediate effect could be given without any overall large expense. This would have a tremendous influence in my opinion and be of tremendous value in indicating to the people of those countries that we are interested in them and that we intend to help them to help themselves. When those countries, undeveloped and backward as they are in many respects, have established the democratic regimes which we hope will be established, they will require engineers, scientists, and scientific agriculturists. I am of the opinion that is something practical which could be done in the immediate future.
I am also of the opinion that we should supply to them surpluses of food and industrial equipment. These could be supplied in considerable quantities through the United Nations Organization and, I hope, as a result of prodding and insistence on the part of the Canadian government, and as a result of collective action by the United Nations. In my opinion it is only by means of economic stability that we can build permanent collective security. I look upon the military phase as



HOUSE Of

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Herridge being something that is unfortunately necessary, a temporary phase. That is all I am going to say on that aspect of the question. I mention it because a large number of the people I have the honour to represent are concerned with that aspect of the question. When the Atlantic pact was adopted in this house we were informed that it was to be not only a military assistance pact but a pact to bring together the nations of the Atlantic union for mutual economic aid, for economic assistance. We all know that to date very little has been done in that respect.
Now we have the Korean situation with its immediate military necessities. We in this group hope that this government will take the initiative and the lead, will use the prestige of Canada as a western progressive democratic nation to push these policies in the United Nations.
I wish to refer briefly to the second portion of our amendment which deals with price controls and subsidies. The question of price controls and subsidies is of increasing concern to a large number of Canadians who are finding it most difficult to carry on under present conditions. I was interested in reading the amendment moved by the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. It is obvious to anyone who reads that amendment that our friends to the right are changing their tune. I am glad to see that.
I was interested in reading Hansard of 1947 to note a reference to an article reported in the Toronto Star which was made by the high priest of free enterprise, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). The quotation which he gave at that time reads as follows:
It is not always easy to be as confident about the benefits of private enterprise as we would like to be. And if we should run into a minor recession, who is going to benefit by it? The Progressive Conservatives? No. The C.C.F. There are price agreements today. There are a lot of people trying to charge what the traffic will bear. If the businessmen really believed in freedom, they would not do that.
Apparently, from what has occurred, some ousinessmen in this country do not believe in freedom. I continue to quote:
Socialists say prices are going up. I say we are going to cure that by production. If we don't, then it is going to be too bad.
When the emergency powers legislation was being considered in 1946 and 1947 our friends to the right voted against controls and pressed for the return to free enterprise and free markets. That action was quite justifiable from their point of view, believing as they did that that was the only solution to the economic instability existing at that time. But what are the facts? Do not forget that the hon. member for Greenwood said
[Stage Direction]

that we were going to cure that condition by production. What he meant was rising prices. What has happened? Let us look at the figures of industrial and agricultural production.
The figures I intend to give are based on an index of 100 for the period 1935-39. The index for industrial production for 1947 is given as 175-9; for 1950 it is 195-6. There you have a considerable increase in industrial production. The index for agricultural production for 1947 is 116, and for 1949, 121-8. I was not able to get the index for the total production in Canada for 1947 and 1950 but I submit that the figures for industrial and agricultural production reflect fairly well the increase in the total production in Canada between 1947 and 1950, an increased production which the hon. member for Greenwood suggested would lower prices.
What has happened? The Canadian Statistical Review published by the bureau of statistics gives the following cost-of-living index figures:
1935-39	100
1947	135.5
1949	160.8
August 1, 1950	168.5
Instead of increased production reducing prices, with increased production we have had rising prices. Since the Korean incident there have been fluctuating and rapidly rising prices. I thing it can be truthfully said that the Progressive Conservative argument of 1947 has been proved definitely by the facts and figures to be invalid. I submit that the C.C.F. argument, which has been consistent throughout the years, that control and regulation are necessary in the modern state, has been proved to be valid. Regardless of our private opinions, in a modern industrial society increasing control must be exercised by the state.
This group is concerned about whom those controls will benefit. We want controls and regulations to be in the interests of the people as a whole. When you have controls that work in that direction you have social democracy. When you have controls and regulations which are applied in the interests of a minority then you are walking toward fascism. Our group has consistently advocated state controls and regulations in order to provide stability and security for the larger number of people in this country under present conditions. I do not think any hon. member can challenge the fact that the program of this group in that respect has been vindicated.
Before concluding I should like to bring to the attention of the house the serious condition that exists with regard to rising prices. I am interested to note that the champion of

free enterprise on the opposite side from Winnipeg-I forget his constituency-is listening with apparent interest and I trust he learns something.
John Lambert Gibson: He is reading a newspaper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to give some figures contained in a review made by the Financial Post which I think most hon. members will admit has provided fairly accurate information on financial matters, prices and so on, throughout the years. Since the Korean war the prices of bread, sugar and meat have gone up. What about clothing? These are all things that affect the lives of the average person in this country, particularly that half of the population which has a relatively small income. Wool has increased ten per cent since the Korean war. Cotton has increased ten per cent; rubber footwear ten per cent; shoes ten per cent and furniture five per cent on the average and in some cases ten per cent. Certain types of electrical equipment have increased in price by twenty per cent.
What about building materials, in which so many veterans and others in this country are interested? Many of these people felt that at last they could begin to build homes at the beginning of this year when materials were coming into greater supply. What do we find in that respect? The prices of nails, steel and steel tools have gone up an average of 15 per cent. Paint has gone up an average of 7i per cent. What about lumber? I know a little about lumber, as does the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), whom I see sitting over there and also listening with great interest. The fact is that the average price of lumber in Canada has increased to such an extent in the last six months that the cost of building an average home has increased $500. That is a most serious thing, Mr. Speaker, to people whose resources are limited. The increase since April 1 varies according to the locality and the type of lumber-


John Lambert Gibson: How about your locality?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -from 20 to 90 per cent. On April 1 this year dressed dimension timber was being sold in British Columbia for $45 a thousand. Today it is being sold for $87 a thousand from some mills.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Those prices have gone up, stimulated largely by the great United States demand for lumber, although on the whole there has been a relatively slight increase in the cost of operation of such companies and the manufacture of the lumber. Owing to the
The Address-Mr. Herridge increase in freight rates the cost of transportation has gone up, as we all know. That is reflected in the cost of living of the average person. What about telephone service? I have not the figures for British Columbia, but I have the Financial Post and I shall read the figures for Ontario. In Ontario the cost of long distance telephone calls has been increased by 20 per cent in recent months. Ontario local telephone calls have been increased by 10 per cent, and so we go on.
I have mentioned a few of the basic essentials in the cost of living, food, furniture, clothing, housing and transportation. All these have shown rapid increases. What is the result? It results not only in economic instability but also in psychological instability. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, democracy cannot function and develop satisfactorily unless it operates in an atmosphere of relative security. In a period of insecurity an opportunity is provided to extremes of the right or left to appeal to the people suffering under such circumstances. The greatest necessity for democracy is at least a relative measure of security for the great mass of the population of the country.
What effect has this had on the working people? Union contracts are made for a year, some for two years, and in some cases as much as from three to five years. How can you expect labour stability, how can you expect labour peace when within the last three or four or five months-six months at the most-we have had these increases in the basic cost of living? Look at the insecurity of the average wage earner. Look at the insecurity of everybody in this country, wage earners, business people and others. Some contractors today are bidding exorbitant amounts for construction jobs because they are not quite certain what the cost of materials is going to be. I know one contractor who bid $36,000 for the construction of a wharf in my constituency on the basis of purchasing his lumber last April at $45 a thousand. Mind you, piling and timber products compose the greater portion of the materials used in the construction of wharves in a district such as mine. If he proceeds with the contract under present prices he may lose thousands of dollars.
That situation is permeating our whole economy. There is the position of the wage earner, the small businessman, the contractor, and all those people who are taking part in the development of the country. What about the old age pensioners? Last session we were talking about $50 a month for old age pensioners. The increases that have taken place already in the cost of living would have wiped out the advantage that the extra

The Address-Mr. J. G. L. Langlois $10 would have given them. What about the disability pensioners who received an increase of 25 per cent a year or two ago? Look at the increase in the cost of living. What about war veterans allowance? Surely parliament could do something about that in view of the increasing cost of living. What about industrial pensions? Many people have retired on small pensions that were bought with dollars that, twenty, thirty or forty years ago, purchased three to five times as much as dollars do today. What about those who have retired on annuities, the many little people living on fixed incomes of various types?
It is a most serious situation, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about it. Whether or not we like the suggestion of controls and regulations, if our economy is to remain on a democratic basis, if we are going to have the necessary measure of stability in the country, both economic and psychological, it is absolutely necessary that the government give immediate and serious attention to invoking a measure of price control and subsidies. Again I say that time has proven our policy correct in this respect. In the interests of the Canadian people as a whole,
I trust what are now, I am sure, the repentant Liberals and Progressive Conservatives will support the amendment to the amendment when the vote is taken.
(Translation):


Mr. J. G. L. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased, at the outset of my remarks, to join with other members who spoke before in congratulating the mover (Mr. Cafmon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the excellent speeches they both delivered.
The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine has fulfilled his duty particularly well and I join with him in thanking the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the honour he has bestowed upon the electors of Iles-de-la-Madeleine in giving their representative in this house the opportunity once more to speak in this important debate. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in five years the representative of Iles-de-la-Madeleine has moved or seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In 1945, at the first session of the twentieth parliament, I had the honour, as representative of the constituency of Gaspe, which included then the Magdalen islands, to second the motion for an address to- His Excellency the Governor General of Canada. The seconder has also carried out his task admirably well and I reiterate my congratulations to both speakers.


(Text):
I also wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on his choice of two new ministers to head the Department of Labour and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The newly appointed ministers both have remarkable records of service in the armed forces and in the public service of Canada. They are highly qualified to fill their new appointments, and I feel sure I express the opinion of the house when I wish both of them every success in their new jobs.
Now that we have disposed of the important question of the railway strike, the attention of the house is directed toward the important problems arising out of the international situation and their implications so far as the affairs of Canada are concerned. Much has been said so far in this debate on these important subjects. I wish to draw the attention of the house, 'Mr. Speaker, more particularly to the remarks made last night by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). I do not intend to attempt to surpass the efforts of my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney), who did a remarkable job in tearing that speech to pieces in the few moments at his disposal. I do want to convey, however, the impression that I gained last night as I listened to the speech. In one breath the hon. member said he blamed the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for depriving the west coast of protection by sending three destroyers to Korea. In the next breath, and during the same speech, Mr. Speaker, he blamed the government for not having sent the army to Korea. It is hard for me, as I imagine it is for most members in this house, to reconcile the two ideas expressed in that speech by the member for Nanaimo.
At this stage I wish to join with my colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, in asking our friends of the opposition to try to get together for once on this problem. I ask the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to repeat in this house the statement he made elsewhere when he requested the veterans of the last war not to join the special force for Korea. This statement is in direct conflict with the statement made last night by the military critic of the opposition, or should I say expert, the member for Nanaimo. I also hope that at an early stage in this debate we have the opportunity of hearing from the two Conservative representatives from the province of Quebec. I am curious to find out what they think on this subject, and I believe the people of the province of Quebec would also like to know whether these two hon. gentlemen will fall in line with the statements made by their leader and their colleague, the member for Nanaimo.

This international situation, Mr. Speaker, is grave, and has serious implications so far as the affairs of this country are concerned. I was glad to hear the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). They both gave this house as full statements of the policy of their respective departments as the members could reasonably expect. Now that we are aware of the policies of these two departments, we are in a position to study the important measures which this house will be asked to pass in the next few days. Tonight we listened to a speech by the member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin). Since the hon. member for Beauce spoke in French, I shall comment on his speech in that language.
(Translation):
Tonight I had the pleasure of listening to the speech of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin). I believe I am being fair to him in saying what follows is a summary, as complete as possible, of the remarks he made. The hon. member has contended that the Korean problem is but a family quarrel, a dispute between two sections of the same country that disagreed with one another and that it is a matter of uniting estranged brothers. Those are the exact terms he used.
I feel duty bound to set things straight and especially to point out to him that Korea was not divided into North and South Korea through a common understanding between the United States and Russia, as he seemed to imply in his remarks. Those who have seen the facts brought to light by our daily newspapers since the beginning of the conflict know that such is not the case. Everyone knows that North Korea is under communist domination. I do not believe it is necessary to quote facts to prove my contention. What is the government's policy in regard to Korea? Why is Canada taking part in the Korean conflict? In answer to those questions may I first be permitted to quote an editorial appearing under the signature of Mr. Camille L'Heureux, in Le Droit of Wednesday August 9. The item is entitled:	"To safeguard peace". I quote:
Prime Minister St. Laurent announced Monday-night the policy the Canadian government will follow in order to ward off a new world war and, if we have the misfortune to be thrown into it, to ensure our freedom within the framework of the United Nations and the Atlantic pact.
This policy involves the setting up, through voluntary enlistment, of a special brigade, which will enable our country to fulfil its international obligations towards the United Nations and as a
The Address-Mr. J. G. L. Langlois signatory power of the Atlantic pact; intensification of recruiting for active service in Canada's air, ground and naval forces; increased production of war material of all kinds: planes, warships, munitions.	[DOT]
Without hesitation, our paper gives support, in principle, to that policy. It also agrees with the general lines the Prime Minister has already indicated. As for the details, the special session which will be summoned within six or seven weeks will afford us an opportunity to appraise them.
And the newspaper added:
Those who imagine that simply by wanting peace they will avoid war and preserve the rest of the free world from soviet slavery are mistaken. While exerting every effort to solve international problems by peaceful means, we must take all necessary precautions so that our common weaknesses may not induce an aggressor to launch an attack. Politically speaking, the free world's main chance of maintaining peace rests in the union of all its forces under the United Nations and the North Atlantic pact which supplements the charter. Canada is both a member of the United Nations and a party to the pact. It cannot refuse now to assume its obligations in accordance with its means. No nation mindful of its own interests and of the general interests of the world must, in fact, remain an idle spectator, unperturbably neutral in the face of the present international situation. This is what the Canadian government, under the leadership of Mr. St. Laurent, has realized, and rightly so.
I read that article first because in my opinion it answers the two questions I have just asked. In that article Le Droit states the issue.
In a subsequent article the same newspaper glaringly contradicts the facts mentioned tonight by the hon. member for Beauce.
I refer now to an article that appeared in the same newspaper on August 18, 1950, also signed by Camille L'Heureux. I quote:
The stand of the Soviet and of certain Canadians with regard to the police action by the United Nations in Korea is strikingly similar.
What does Moscow claim? At first, in Korea we were faced with only a civil war. It was merely a matter of internal politics and of no possible concern to the United Nations, the United States or any other nation. Subsequently Washington was guilty of aggression against that country under the cloak of the United Nations. To prevent war from spreading and for the sake of international peace, Koreans should be left to settle their own internal problems.
Mr. Speaker, I would call your attention to the similarity between what Le Droit states to be Moscow's claim and the speech the hon. member has delivered tonight.
I quote further:
According to Soviet Russia, Canada has therefore no business in the Korean struggle. By taking part in it, Canada is getting involved in matters in which it is not concerned, just as the United States and the United Nations, and thus risks spreading the scope of the struggle.
In a practically identical form, this opinion is held by some Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would add that if this article carried tomorrow's date rather than

The Address-Mr. J. G. L. Langlois that of August 18, Mr. L'Heureux could also say:
-and by the member for Beauce.
The editorial goes on:
Thus, since the beginning of the invasion of South Korea by North Korea, we hear or read opinions such as these: Canada has no business in this conflict; it is only a civil war; it is a clash between two powerful antagonists; to take part in the struggle would mean spreading the scope of the struggle.
Canada must follow a policy of absolute neutrality or non-intervention.
The hon. member for Beauce stated tonight that he is not opposed to the training of soldiers as long as we keep them at home.
That is the policy of non-intervention mentioned in Le Droit, the policy of isolation criticized in the article I have just quoted.
According to Canadians who speak thus, Stalin is defending the right and common good of the whole world, as well as Canada's general interests, in the Korean conflict. That is the logical but false conclusion which from the legal and practical standpoints stems from these two basically identical arguments.
Thus could be justified, at one fell swoop, the tactics which enabled Russia, through her agents-
And that is what happened in Korea.
-to impose her will in Poland, Roumania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and western Germany. Moscow has always put forward the same principles: solution of a political difficulty of purely internal character, non-intervention of foreign powers and of the United Nations, will of the majority but, in fact, dictatorship by the minority.
Le Droit represents a group of men whose opinions,-and with that everybody agrees,- are not always shared by the government with which I have the honour of sitting tonight. Everyone in my province is equally convinced of the neutrality and independence of that newspaper in the political field.
If the hon. member for Beauce is still in a state of uncertainty as to the soundness of the policy of this government in respect to the Korean problem, may I refer him to a leading editorial appearing in the Thursday edition of L'Action Catholique. Allow me to quote in part this important editorial:
Certain acts of aggression are tantamount to an attempt on the majesty of God.
First of all, this is what Pius XXI has to say about a war of aggression. In this speech delivered Christmas day 1948, the Pope stated:
Any war of aggression against these values that the divine order of peace unconditionally compels to respect and' guarantee, and consequently also to protect and defend, is a sin, an offence and an attempt against the majesty of God, creator of the world and source of all order.
It is not only against another state that the aggressor directs his attacks, but against the very

majesty of God, against the order He has created. And so it is that serious responsibilities stem from this vital truth. Pope Pius XII adds:	A people
threatened by or already the victim of an unjust aggression cannot, if it is to think and act in a Christian manner, remain passively indifferent; it therefore stands that the solidarity of the family of nations prohibits them from acting as idle spectators and preserving an attitude of unconcerned neutrality.
I call the attention of the hon. member to the following paragraph:
Therefore, now and henceforth condemnation is already heaped on the attitude of those who, unthinkingly we hope, oppose any Canadian intervention in world affairs. Let them reflect upon this other judgment of the Holy Father:
Who can even estimate the damage caused in the past by such indifference, quite foreign to Christian feelings, towards an aggressive war. How sharply it has made us feel that there was a lack of security among the "great" powers and particularly among the "small" ones! Has it, by way of compensation, brought any advantages? On the contrary, it has only heartened and encouraged those guilty of aggression, forcing every nation, left to its own devices, to increase its armament to an indefinite extent.
Here is a last quotation taken from the same newspaper, L'Action Catholique, of Friday, September 1. This article is entitled: "Canada and Korea". I shall not read the first part of that article in which a review is made of the facts already mentioned in the articles which I have just quoted from La Droit. There are two subtitles which read as follows: "There has been an unjustified aggression" and "Intervention is logical". I quote:
It would seem clear that Canada, from the standpoint of Christian principles-
I would again call the attention of the hon. member for Beauce to the expression "from the standpoint of Christian principles".
-has the moral as well as the legal obligation to intervene; but can it be strictly concluded that such intervention must be military?
The Church lets states determine the manner in which they can perform their duty. It is for the Canadian government to decide how it can best defeat aggression and bring the aggressor to reason. Citizens are quite free to express opinions in this regard provided they do so without hatred or passion and with respect for the opinion of others.
As for us, we cannot consider it illogical that Canada should play its part, even a military part-
I repeat "even a military part".
-to quell the aggressor, provided our leaders have due regard for our real responsibilities, the requirements of our security and provided especially their ultimate purpose is to prevent, and not to launch war, and so put an end as quickly as possible to the Russian problem.
Mr. Speaker, it is admittedly not for me to give advice to the hon. member for Beauce. However, I urge him to study the articles I have just quoted. He will find that the

remarks he made tonight by no means agree with the opinion expressed by those two newspapers, which are leaders of public opinion in my province and other Frenchspeaking centres.
As has been explained by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), our policy of intervention in Korea is the logical consequence of our membership in the United Nations and their operation, as well as the logical consequence of our share in the organization, operation and application of the North Atlantic pact.
In 1945, Canada played a leading part in the United Nations Organization. At the initial meeting in San Francisco, the former prime minister and the present Prime Minister both played a part which was all to the honour of Canada. That was on the eve of the general election of 1945.
Did the people of my province and the people of this country condemn, in 1945, the attitude of the late Mackenzie King and the present Prime Minister, after they had just taken part in the organization of the United Nations? Needless to add that the people of this country during the elections which immediately followed this first organizational conference supported heartily the stand taken by the late Mackenzie King and the present Prime Minister.
Moreover, when Canada made the decision to adhere to the North Atlantic pact, the people of my province gave their support to the Prime Minister for the attitude he had taken and we are proud of our part in the organization of this pact of friendship and mutual assistance. In 1949 in fact, the present Prime Minister paid a visit to the electors of his province and to those of the whole country and explained to them the obligations implied for Canada. What was the answer of the people of Canada? I am sure that the hon. member for Beauce remembers that answer. They gave it with a firm and unanimous voice on June 27, 1949, when they sent to Ottawa, to conduct the business of this country for another five-year term, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent by the biggest majority ever given a political leader in Canada.
My hon. colleague from Beauce has claimed tonight he was expressing and abiding by the opinion of his electors. That is a very easy part to play. Yet, although the hon. member represents in this house the people of Beauce constituency, he must not remain under the impression that that is all he has to do. We are here to help direct the affairs of
The Address-Mr. J. G. L. Langlois the Canadian nation. It is true that we represent our respective constituencies, but we have, each and every one of us, responsibilities towards the whole people of Canada. Even if the hon. member for Beauce is under the impression that the voters of his constituency share his opinion, it nevertheless devolves upon him to consider the interests of Canada as a whole.
I wish to point out to my colleague that he belongs to one of the opposition groups and as such it is his duty in this house to speak on behalf of his province within that group. As I believe there are certain links, certain affiliations between him and the other Conservative members from the province of Quebec in this house, I would ask him to advise his colleagues from Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and from Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) to go on record on this important issue. As I said a moment ago in English, not only their colleagues in this house but the whole population of the province of Quebec have the right to know what they think; they have the right to know once and for all what their stand is with regard to this crisis, this serious situation.
As I stated a while ago, after the 1945 elections and the 1949 elections, we were able to conclude from the overwhelming majority obtained that the nation supported the logical and sensible policy which our Prime Minister stated on behalf of Canada before the United Nations and the countries bound by the North Atlantic pact. The majority obtained all over Canada by the Prime Minister was more overwhelming in the province of the hon. member for Beauce than anywhere else in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the electors of the province of Quebec do not like war; I do not like it any better than the hon. member for Beauce. I only wish to remind him that I had the honour of serving for five years and some months during the last war. I hate war, everyone hates war; nobody wants another conflict. However, as has been so well said by the editor of Le Droit, when it is forced upon us, we must defend ourselves and repel aggression wherever it breaks out.
Such should be the stand of every rightthinking Canadian in the present instance. There can be no other.
Before concluding my remarks I would like to mention more particularly the part played by Canada's naval forces in this conflict. As I stated earlier, I had the honour

The Address-Division
of serving in the navy during the last war. I have always been proud of the humble part I played in the activities of the Canadian navy and I am twice as proud today for having had that privilege when I realize that the Canadian navy is carrying on its difficult task in Korea. I hope that it will always be able to keep up that tradition, so dear to the hearts of our sailors, of being the first in action.
I read in some newspapers that complaints were made to the effect that the activities of the Canadian navy in Korea were not known by the public. Let me point out to those who complain that what is most typical of the Canadian navy is that it is the silent service; "the silent navy" as we call it. We take pride in keeping this tradition because the members of the Canadian navy find immediate reward for their valour in having done their duty and in having once again carried proudly the great name of Canada in the Korean conflict.
Mr. Speaker, the three units of the Canadian navy engaged in action today remind me of the glorious part played by the same navy at the beginning of the 1939-1945 war when, practically alone, it protected our convoys across the north Atlantic.
Those who have read the memoirs of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill were proud, as Canadians, to realize that in his book the eminent statesman conceded great importance to the part played by the Canadian navy in world war II.
I am certain that my former comrades in arms of the Royal Canadian Navy will again be a credit to their country in Korea and will again fill us with legitimate pride in days to come.
(Text):


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I should first of all like to offer congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I realize fully the difficulty that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) and the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett) were under in making their addresses because at this session there was a considerable departure from the customary speech from the throne. Consequently they were not permitted to make the usual speeches that such an event calls for. Under the circumstances I think I can join with all other members of the house in congratulating them on doing a very difficult task in a most excellent manner indeed.
As all hon, members are aware, this session was called for two purposes only. The first of those purposes has now been accomplished. The railroad strike has been settled, and I may say that the action of the union leaders following the decision of parliament is indeed to be commended. It was a great

pleasure to me, as a new Canadian, to see the straightforward way in which the union leaders accepted the direction of parliament when the decision had been made. I feel certain that any bitterness occasioned by the strike has now been forgotten. I feel sure that all of us realize the just demands of these men of the unions. Some of us may think they went a little too far in actually engaging in a strike but we realize the justice of their demands, and I feel that most of us will want the official arbitrator to bear that in mind in coming to any decision he may have to reach in the event of a settlement not being arrived at between labour and management.
I also trust that the demands made with respect to two of the unions in particular, those connected with water transport and railway hotels, will not be forgotten in the event of a settlement by arbitration becoming necessary. We all realize that the cost of living has spiralled and the wages of the workers have not gone up in accordance with the spiralling cost of living. Therefore it is only fair and just that both water transport and railway hotel workers should be given the same proportionate increase in their wages as the regular railway workers.
I am particularly interested in the water transport workers, and I speak with some vestige of authority because of the fact, through accident or otherwise, that for a space of three years I was the president of a labour union known as the Newfoundland seamen's union. As you are aware, the greatest and last province of Canada is an island, and the only connection with the railways is by water ferry. I am quite certain that the water ferry providing the connection between Port aux Basques and North Sydney, and the operators thereof, should be regarded in exactly the same light as all other operators of the Newfoundland services of the Canadian National Railways. I feel that the same provisions should apply to the other steamships operated by the C.N.R. on our coast, and indeed on the west coast of Canada as well. Having made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have no more to say so far as that subject is concerned. It is a closed chapter, and I think it has been closed in such a way that it has done honour not only to this parliament but also to the unions of Canada.
It is unfortunate that the second part of our troubles occasioning the calling of this session of parliament could not have been settled in somewhat the same way. It is true that we have introduced into labour matters a new factor that labour did not want to see, and which my leader very properly called compulsory abritration. It is, in effect, compulsory arbitration. I trust it is merely in effect to 69262-13
The Address-Mr. Higgins settle this one particular difficulty, and that it will not be used as a pattern in the future. If we could use compulsory arbitration in the case of the other difficulty that we are now facing, then I think every one of us would be satisfied to regard it as a just and proper way to handle the situation. Unfortunately we cannot handle it by arbitration. It would appear that the only way to meet the threat to the whole civilized world as we know it, and not only to Korea, is by force.
The other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) gave us a very clear exposition of the situation, and he was followed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). Frankly, however, I must say that I was confused in the picture that I had on leaving here when parliament prorogued last June. I understood, and I believe many other members of parliament had the same impression, that in so far as Canada's defence forces were concerned everything was rosy. If the picture was rosy then it does not appear to be too rosy at the present time. If we take the situation as presented by the Minister of National Defence and the picture presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and some others, there is great divergence in their opinions and views. Somebody must be wrong. I do not know who is wrong, but somebody must be.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Gordon Francis Higgins: One thing we do know is that hon. members can evaluate for themselves the rather extraordinary statement-at least it was to me-made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I listened to him the other night rather carefully, as I am sure we all did, and I read the statement again to be quite certain I had heard it correctly. At page 94 of Hansard he said:
Canadian defence policy, therefore, until June of this year, had been based on the concept of providing a small, highly-skilled regular army, charged with responsibility of doing its immediate share of North American defence, especially in the Arctic, and designed to be capable of rapid expansion in the event of a general war which might require Canada to be defended outside of Canada.
This is the important part of that paragraph.
The furnishing to the United Nations on short notice of expeditionary forces capable of quick deployment in distant areas wherever acts of aggression might take place had not, I admit, entered into our planning as it had not entered into the planning of any other country.
To me, Mr. Speaker, that was a most extraordinary statement. I do not blame the Secretary of State for External Affairs for not expecting a war in Korea. Surely, however, with the picture presented to us in June of last year, and indeed I believe in October, 1949, he and the cabinet must have

The Address-Mr. Higgins expected a war, such as broke out in Korea, to occur somewhere. There could be no question of that. A war was expected somewhere, because that was the policy of Russia, and yet no plans whatever were made to take care of that war.


Some hon. Members:: What war?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not care what war it was. Perhaps there is no war over in Korea. Perhaps hon. members of the government feel there is no war. It is probably just a little picnic over there.
It does appear to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a rather extraordinary statement to say that no plans were put into effect for such an eventuality; that had to be taken into consideration, and that was the thinking of the minister. It must have been. What was done about it? Nothing.
Then there is the statement of the Minister of National Defence at page 99 of Hansard. He said:
That is not ordinarily the role of a medium size nation, and it was not the planned role of Canada. It was no part of our defence program; there was no promise that it would be done, and there was no suggestion that we should prepare to do it.
It is difficult to reconcile that statement with the statement of the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, who at page 85 of Hansard says:
Canada, Mr. Speaker, is a member of the United Nations. She signed the United Nations charter in
1945, and this signature was ratified by both houses of parliament. Under the charter Canada has assumed obligations toward the other signatory nations. She has agreed to take effective collective measures for the suppression of acts of aggression, to give the United Nations every assistance in any action they take in accordance with the charter, and to accept and to carry out the decisions of the security council, also in accordance with the charter.


Mr. Robinson:: Why don't you go on to tell about the representations which Canada made to the United Nations in 1946?


Gordon Francis Higgins: There must be many people very interested in this matter. I am grateful to them for their interest, and for following me as closely as they have. Having heard my leader, and knowing the amount of money that has been spent during the past five years -I believe a billion and a half dollars-it would appear as though the goods were ordered, were paid for, but were not delivered. Who is responsible for that? I do not know. It is not any hon. member on this side of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is eleven o'clock, so I would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 4, 1950


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on and after Monday, September 4, 1950, until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that, in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, no one is more anxious than I am to see the work of this special session completed as quickly as possible. In seeking an early termination of the session, however, the first consideration is to make sure that the people's business is given adequate consideration. On Votes and Proceedings today we have an indication of legislation and motions that will have a profound effect upon the Canadian economy and upon the general welfare of all our people. These matters are of a nature and a scale that call for adequate consideration by every member before he passes judgment.
If this house sits from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night, it does not mean that the members are working from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night. It means that any member who is attempting to understand what is being presented, and to give that measure of consideration which the importance of these measures demands, will be working from seven o'clock in the morning until well after midnight. Those measures do demand consideration. In addition to that, under our parliamentary system it is important that members who are associated in parties not only seek to understand these measures but that they have an opportunity to discuss them and gain the advantage of an exchange of ideas with those with whom they are associated.
For these reasons I believe that the work of this house will be completed more quickly, and in a manner consistent with the importance of the subjects before us, if sittings are held in the ordinary way in the afternoon and evening, leaving the mornings open for consideration of the important bills and motions which will be introduced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to register my objection to this motion, for the reasons indicated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and for the reasons indicated yesterday in connection with another matter by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). In addition to those reasons, I am opposed to this motion because it seems to me to be part of a pattern, indicating the government's desire not only to get this session over as early as possible but to get parliament away from Ottawa.
That plan worries me, Mr. Speaker, because my fear is-I believe there are others in the house who share or at least understand that fear-that after we return home there is a danger of other crises arising. The international situation could worsen, or the situation on the home front could demand, in connection with rising prices for example, other measures than those which may be brought before us during this session. Yet with parliament back home the government would be powerless to deal with these crises that might arise.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there is this urgency, not only should we deal with the matters before us in a more responsible manner, as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) yesterday, but it should also be made clear to us that if there are any further crises after the immediate business before us is over, parliament will be called back. I imagine that the government is not anxious to have another special session, but it could be that this session, following the practice pursued by parliament during the last war, could simply be adjourned so that we could be called back in the event of any crisis. I feel that unless the world situation clears before next June, as all of us hope it may, the same principle will apply then with respect to the session of 1951. Indeed, so long as there is any state of crisis facing us in this country or facing the world, the people's representatives should not feel that they are being rushed away from Ottawa but should either be kept here or should be readily callable so that they can deal with the people's business without delay.
I personally do not object to working longer hours, but I feel that the supremacy of parliament in these matters should be

Business of the House recognized. As to some of the suggestions I have made, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) may not wish to answer at this time; but I think he should consider the whole situation with his colleagues in the government and let the house know at the earliest possible moment how the government plans to deal with other crises that could develop after we have dealt with the matters now before us.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, we in this group want to help the government to get through the business of the house as soon as it is possible to do so. But at the same time we feel that we just cannot give to the measures that are being brought before us the consideration which they should be given if we have to sit three times a day. We are prepared to support the government in sitting on Saturdays and on every other day of the week for two sittings, but we would ask, for the reasons already advanced, that the government consider withdrawing this motion at this time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We have heard only three of the hon. members of this house, Mr. Speaker, and we have had three rather diverging views. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does not object to the long hours. This motion has no other purpose than to provide for long hours. I am sure that the hon. gentleman is not serious in thinking that anyone here would deprive us of the pleasure of having him with us at Ottawa; but that is something which can be dealt with on some other occasion.
At this moment the only question is whether or not the business of the house will be more efficiently dealt with by sitting three times a day or by sitting twice a day. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) told us that it would be dealt with better and more expeditiously by sitting twice a day. There are a great many who do not share that view. We all have the same concern about having the business properly and seriously considered, but we do not all agree as to what is the best method to adopt in order to achieve that end. I think that the diverging views will have to be determined in the ordinary way, that is, by the acceptance of those which are shared by the majority of the members of this house.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that he has heard from only three members. I had not intended to say anything, but I endorse all that my leader has said. I am one of those who naturally would like to be at

home at this time of the year, but I was elected a member of parliament; and I have certainly had a bit of a gruelling experience in this past week, in my humble way, with the house meeting three times a day. Certainly it was extremely important, but we did not have time properly to study and to consider the legislation that was before us. It just cannot be done, even if you forgo your regular meals and grab a snack on the run.
When we met here for an emergency session this week, the government had not their legislation prepared. They have technical advisers whose assistance we in the apposition do not have, and they certainly have a great advantage over us. Even when they were asked questions yesterday, they said they were considering several matters and had not yet made a decision on them. The country therefore will surely understand that we of the opposition are at a disadvantage in that respect. I am sure that all the important legislation that is to come before us cannot be given the consideration which it deserves if we meet three times a day.
It has teen pointed out that the several parties have to hold caucuses.. The government do not yet know what their legislation is. In fact I am reminded of the definition of a member of parliament which I heard as I was leaving to come down here. The definition was this: one who was elected by the people to represent them in parliament, but whom this government did not like to see in Ottawa any more than they have to, until they got themselves into a real mess and then they put on an airlift to get him here to help them out of the mess.
I also agree with one of the other speakers -not of this party-who said that world conditions are extremely serious. But I would ask you to remember this, Mr. Speaker. It was common knowledge that this government did not intend to call us here until the last week in September or the first week in October in order to deal with the very matters we are now debating, namely, national defence and the Korean situation. Until this railway strike came on us as a great crisis, they had no thought of calling us here for another three, four or five weeks. I therefore do not know where the consistency is when they tell us there is all this urgency to meet three times a day, thus affording no time to hon. members to give consideration to the legislation which is presented to this house. I hope that the members will be fair about this matter, if we have to decide it by a recorded vote.


Angus MacInnis: 
Major James William Coldwell: As
the mover of the motion yesterday, Mr. Speaker, having to do with hours of sitting, may I say that I concur in what the hon. member for Vancouver Bast (Mr. Maclnnis) has just said. I regret that I did not ask for a recorded vote yesterday. The roar from the benches opposite was such that I immediately took it as the view of the house, but today the benches from which that roar of nays came are empty. I say that members who are present this afternoon have a just cause of complaint at the absence of so many government supporters.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a question, and I hope he will believe I am asking it in good faith. It was perfectly intelligible to us all why we should sit three periods a day when the railway strike was before us. It was urgent; it was necessary; every hour counted. It was my own leader who suggested that we should give up our lunch hour and sit right through.
With regard to the present matters before us, while they are very urgent, I think it is fair to say that they hardly have the hour-to-hour urgency that the railway measure had.	*
I should like to point out that we on this side of the house feel very earnestly what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said,
Business of the House namely, that it is hard for us to consider measures which presumably have been considered for many hours by the government with their expert advisers, and which are then brought to us here. We, on the other hand, have very inadequate time at the best of times, with only a fraction of the expert assistance which the government has, to do our best to consider these methods. I assume that one of the reasons why we do not ordinarily sit three times a day is that it is recognized we do not spend the morning in junketing, but that we do spend it in consideration of measures which are before us.
I say very respectfully but earnestly to the Prime Minister that not only has nothing been said to indicate why we should depart from ordinary routine which has been followed during the life of parliament, but I suggest that on the contrary next week is a particularly inopportune time to do that, because, as has already been pointed out by my leader, next week we shall have to consider perhaps more than the usual number of difficult and perplexing matters.
I repeat that if it were a matter of hour-to-hour urgency to reach a decision I do not think my leader ever would have raised the question. We honestly and sincerely ask the government: why, then, depart next week from generations of parliamentary practice? For this ho reason has been suggested that I have been able to grasp. I ask why next week we cannot have the time which it is ordinarily considered desirable for us to have to consider the measures before us and to do our duty.


John Lambert Gibson: It is
rarely that I have had occasion to criticize the wisdom of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and of the government, nor am I today particularly criticizing his wisdom. But I appeal to both his wisdom and his generosity and ask him to give some consideration to what has been said here this afternoon.
As an ordinary member of parliament I have the feeling that we private members have not had an opportunity of considering the vast program of legislation that is being brought forward and will be on the order paper next week. I would be grateful for a little more time to give it major consideration next week rather than have three sittings a day.


Robert Fair: As one who
has sat in the House of Commons for almost fifteen years and has often seen days wasted on matters that did not amount to a hill of beans, except for political reasons, I would ask the house to get down to sane business methods.

Business of the House
As has been pointed out already, in the coming days we shall have matters of grave importance to this country to deal with. For the life of me I cannot see why the house should have three sittings a day. Let us put in our time usefully and sensibly rather than talking politically, as many hours and even days have been wasted in the past. I hope we shall get down to sane business methods now and, commencing Monday, proceed with two sittings a day.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to be offensive to members of parliament, and I still think we can give fair and intelligent consideration to these matters with three sittings a day; but I do confess that the resolutions which are in Votes and Proceedings have appeared for the first time this morning. So that we shall have no ill feeling about it, may I suggest that I have permission to defer this motion and bring it up again, and then substitute for "Monday" whatever may be the appropriate day. I would then hope that after hon. members have had time to consider these resolutions, and after we have had some opportunity on Monday to deal with them, hon. members will feel differently about the advisability of having further mornings for consultations.
One hon. member said that when we did not sit in the mornings it did not mean that the morning was wasted. Usually the morning is devoted to meetings of committees. No committees have been set up, and there are therefore no committees sitting at that time. I shall not say any more about it at this moment. If it is preferred by hon. members that they have until three o'clock Monday afternoon to look at the terms of the resolutions which are now in Votes and Proceedings-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us decide by vote now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there is any challenge to a vote at this time the government is quite prepared to have it recorded; but if the attitude is that we do not want to quarrel, and that we all want to arrive at the best possible method of considering these matters, it might be agreeable to suggest that we defer a decision upon this motion until I ask to have it called again. If that is not agreeable, I am quite prepared to go on with it. But if it is agreeable, I am prepared to have it deferred to be called again either on Tuesday or Wednesday, because I think hon. members will come to the conclusion, after having con-


sidered the matter, that they would not then have the same objection to three sittings a day.


John George Diefenbaker: At the special session in September, 1939, three o'clock was the opening hour, and there was war.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. member has the advantage over me. I was not here at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: Neither was I.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The session lasted five days.


George Alexander Drew: I think that hon. members here are as anxious as the Prime Minister to get on with the business of the house. I must confess that I was not impressed by the suggestion that unless the proposal made by the Prime Minister was acceptable it would be put to a vote. I am not agreeable to deferring it. Unless the motion is withdrawn I suggest that a vote be taken.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All right.


Harry Oliver White: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Milton Fowler Gregg: Even though events overnight have outdated this announcement I am going to make, I should like to keep the promise I made yesterday. The strike of the coastal steamship personnel on the Pacific coast has been settled. An agreement dated September 1, signed late last night, is to this effect:	The
seafarers' international union and the companies concerned are agreeable to the same conditions of settlement as provided for in the legislation passed August 30, namely, four cents an hour increase effective immediately and such changes in working conditions for coastal steamship personnel in the operating employees group as may follow from the negotiations pursuant to this legislation. The hourly increase will apply to overtime rates. Hours of work performed by deck and engine ratings on Canadian National and Canadian Pacific coastal steamships shall be eight hours in a spread of not greater than sixteen hours.
Operations are being resumed immediately. Both parties have expressed appreciation of the assistance by officers of the Department of Labour in settling the dispute.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which unfortunately I have been unable to give him notice. In view of statements in the press of Canada today, and questions being raised in both London and New York, and in order to clarify the exchange position and prevent the utmost confusion, can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not the government has any intention of altering the official exchange rate of the Canadian, dollar in terms of the United States dollar?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): No consideration has been given to the matter referred to in the hon. member's question.



QUESTION AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON FIVE YEAR POOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that we are approaching the distribution of payments for the participation certificates for wheat sold by farmers during the five-year pool, would the minister state what amount per bushel will be paid over and above the amount in the pool by way of compensation for the losses sustained by the farmers during that period?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I stated at the last session, when the wheat in the five-year pool has all been sold the matter of final payment will be considered. Until then it is impossible to give consideration to the matter, in view of the fact that there is no way of determining accurately what the final balance sheet of the .pool will be.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a further question? Has he any idea when distribution will be made? There are areas in the west in which the farmers are asking when they may expect it. As I remember, the minister said that distribution could not be made until after July 31. I should like to know if he has any information as to when it is expected the payments can be made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as the final payment on wheat is concerned, I think I stated at the last session that I was hopeful it could be

The Address-Mr. Harkness made in this calendar year. I intimated that considerable time must elapse after July 31 before all the wheat could be sold. Deliveries of wheat during July were running close to six million bushels per week, and my hop. friend will realize that some time will have to elapse before that wheat can be sold and moved to world markets. However, I expect that final settlement of the coarse grains pool will be made considerably before the end of the year.


James Arthur Ross: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Can the minister state what the carry-over of wheat was on August 1?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The statistical carry-over-that is, the carry-over of all wheat in Canada- was about 100 million bushels.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a further question. In view of the fact that many farmers in western Canada are now threshing, can the minister say when the prices for the various grades will be set, and when the elevator companies will be able to pay cash for deliveries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I inquired two or three days ago and I was told that it is hoped that the spreads could be fixed by the end of next week. It is difficult this year, on account of the uncertainty as to the quality and quantity of the various grades, to fix the spreads, but it is hoped that it can be done after another week.


Hazen Robert Argue: When the spreads are fixed, will the elevators be in a position to issue cheques?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, September 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Charles Cannon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the speech from the throne, this session was called to consider two grave matters, the railroad strike, and our defence problems. The Korean affair and the extremely serious world situation have made it necessary to review our defences. Not only is it necessary to review them; 'it has become


apparent that they must be considerably enlarged, from the point of view of both manpower and of equipment. I am glad to see that the government already has taken steps in that direction.
On arriving here I think all hon. members realized that the international situation and matters concerning defence were the more important of the matters to be considered, but the more immediately pressing matter was the strike, which was dealt with first, as its urgency demanded. In much the same way the Canadian people have .two great questions on their minds, or perhaps I should say two great worries. The first and more important is the fear of another war and the devastation and suffering it would bring. The second is the evidence of inflationary trends which are causing constant increases in the cost of living and creating difficulties from week to week in the feeding, clothing and sheltering of families. That is the immediate and pressing problem in connection with which our people look to this government to take some immediate action which will give them a measure of relief.
It has been said many times, and I think it will bear repetition now, that the people on whom inflation imposes the greatest difficulties are the so-called white-collar workers- clerks in stores, office people, and others of that type, and people living on fixed incomes, particularly pensioners, but also people living on annuities and other forms of savings. Every increase in the cost of living imposes further hardships on such people. In most cases there is nothing they can do about it, no action they can take to improve their lot. I think the point has been reached where steps must be taken to end the constant decline in the purchasing power of the dollar which makes it difficult for all of us, but particularly for that large section of the population about whom I have just been speaking.
I now wish to say something about the general world situation. Its gravity has been emphasized by every speaker who has taken part in the debate. Essentially it is no more grave now than it was three months ago, but the outbreak of war in Korea has more or less focused it in the minds of the people of the free world, and has brought about the realization that the masters of the Kremlin are engaged in a program of world domination that will halt only when opposed by sufficient forces to persuade them that further advances are not likely to be successful. As a result of that realization, and the fact that the only hope for peace is a rearmed western world, vast rearmament programs have now been undertaken by the United States, Great Britain, France, and in fact by all the rest of the

western world. So far as Canada is concerned, we have an indication of what Canada is doing in the issue of Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, available to members today.
In his speech at the beginning of this debate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) referred to what has been a subject of discussion for some time in many papers, namely, that more occurrences such as Korea are likely to take place from now on. I think there is no doubt that the Russians will try to get us to disperse our forces in these comparatively small wars and thus weaken ourselves. The problem of meeting this type of aggression is an extremely serious one. I think we all agree that further communist advances must be stopped, but the western world cannot afford to commit its strength piecemeal in various parts of the world. Quite frankly I have no pat answer as to how the problem must be met, but it is a question upon which decisions must be made. Certainly Canada cannot afford to send small forces to every place where an outbreak may occur, such as countries in the Far East, Persia, and so on. In other words, if we are to be strong at home, which I think is the first and vital necessity, we cannot send forces to every trouble spot in the world. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should make a further statement about how we propose to meet this problem which seems certain to develop. We should know whether or not the government has any definite ideas on the matter.
I was glad to gather from the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we are now prepared to look at the world situation more realistically than we have viewed it in many instances in the past. I thought this was demonstrated particularly by his reference to the rearmament of Germany. I should like to remind the house that I put forward the same proposition on June 8 of this year when we were discussing the defence estimates. I think I cannot do better than to read what I said at that time. I do so because I should like to restate the position I took then and elaborate on it to some extent. At that time I said, as recorded at page 3357 of Hansard:
One of the most important considerations in the strategy set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the protection of western Europe is what is to be done with western Germany. Russia is now arming the Germans in the Russian zone of Germany. In my opinion the decision is squarely up to the Atlantic pact nations to do the same thing in the western zone, or, if we are not prepared at the present time to arm the Germans in our zone, we must accept the proposition that none of the western zone of Germany can be defended.
The Address-Mr. Harkness We shall have to write it off in the beginning as an area to be overrun by the Russians, in the event of war with them.
Personally I think it is also extremely unlikely that, without the armed manpower of western Germany, any of the western European nations with the exception of the peninsulas-Italy, possibly, and more likely Spain, and of course Great Britain because of her island position-could be held successfully. But apart from those countries it would seem to me most unlikely that the North Atlantic pact countries, as the strategy enunciated suggests, could be saved from occupation unless that large pool of manpower in western Germany is utilized.
I should like to know whether this aspect of the matter has been considered in formulating our defence policy, and what the conclusions have been with respect thereto. I know that this whole question is a very thorny one, concerning which most governments in western Europe do not wish to commit themselves, because there is still a large body of opinion mortally afraid of a rearmed Germany. However, in my view this is one of the most important questions to be faced-indeed, perhaps the vital one-if this new strategy is to be carried into effect.
If our government has any opinion in the matter, then we should be told about it in the House of Commons. If our military leaders have anything like the view I have enunciated, we should be told. If they do take that view, then we as a country should be prepared to press for its adoption.
Evidently since that time the government has come to the conclusion that the rearmament of western Germany has become a necessity, or, alternatively, that sufficient forces must be stationed in western Europe to defend that country against a possible Russian attack. I do not think that is a practical proposition. In my opinion the question of rearming western Germany is the crux of the defence of western Europe, and thus we may say of the whole free world. If Russia takes the final step of plunging the world into war, western Europe can be saved from conquest-I say "can" and not "would be" saved-by rearming Germany together with the forces of the other western powers.
But I am afraid that without a rearmed Germany-in fact I feel certain in my own mind-western Europe cannot be saved. The leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Drew) indicated yesterday something of the disparity in forces existing in that area. The western nations have twelve divisions and the Russians have 176. I think it must be apparent to everyone that we cannot possibly maintain anything like a sufficient number of troops on the continent to counter the mass of men and armour that the Russians have poised there, and which they could put in motion very rapidly.
Another point in connection with this matter to which I should like to direct attention, and it is perhaps even more important, is that a rearmed western Germany would be the greatest deterrent, after the atomic bomb, to Russia attempting a move westward. In other words, I think it would be the greatest

The Address-Mr. Harkness force to prevent war, the greatest action which could be taken to prevent war at the present time of any of the various rearmament measures that are being carried out.
There was one other matter to which I referred last year, and I was disappointed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not mention it. It concerns the matter of coming to some agreement with Spain. When a war threatens it is well to consider the worst that could happen. If the Russians march in Europe within any appreciable time in the future, there is nothing to stop them from overrunning western Germany,. Belgium, Holland and France in two or three weeks. There is not the force there, and it could not be got there. The only place which could be defended with the forces available in that country, or available to the western powers, is Spain. I do not believe there is any doubt that it could be held. It might be possible to hold Italy as well, but certainly Spain could be held. If it could be held, and the worst happened, that would give us a place for air operations against the Russians, and provide a base upon which men and materials could be assembled to do what we had to do in the last war, retake the continent from the conquerors. It seems to me that this matter of coming to some arrangement with Spain has now become an extremely important one, and one on which this government should take some stand. As I say, I am glad the government has taken a stand on the German question. I think it was long overdue.
Coming now, Mr. Speaker, to our own defence problems, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) stressed the point that it had never been envisaged that the United Nations would take military measures. As a result no role of that kind had been planned for any Canadian force. Even if that be so, my point is that when aggression occurred in Korea we had no force in being, other than naval, which could fight effectively anywhere, including our own territory. The general reaction which I found among the people in Calgary, and the most frequent phrase I heard used when the Korean force was officially announced, was one with which you are all familiar, "Too little and too late". Whether that force is too little, I am not prepared to argue. The dispersal of the forces is a prime consideration in any decision on the question whether forces can be sent to a place like Korea. It is a matter upon which I should not like to express an opinion without knowing more about the entire situation, and what forces we are likely to have in the next few months.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, our response to the United Nations request for ground troops was too late. I think there is no question about that. It was too late particularly from the psychological point of view. I believe the slowness of our response did a great deal of damage amongst our own people, and a great deal of damage to our reputation throughout the world. I am very much afraid that the delay of nearly a month created the general impression that our brave words of the past in support of the United Nations were mere talk which we were not prepared to back up with action. Surely it was clear when the United Nations asked us for ground troops to support the action in Korea that we must reply affirmatively. Under those circumstances I find it difficult to understand why this delay of a month took place before any answer was given. Surely it would have been much better from every point of view to say that we would send ground forces. As I say, it seems to me it was clear that if we were to continue to support the United Nations, if the United Nations was to be effective, we had to reply affirmatively. Why the delay of a month, which created this bad impression at home and abroad? It seems to me the only answer is the inability of the government to make up its mind. The same difficulty has characterized it on many other occasions. The government hates to make a decision which may lose some votes some time some place.
In that connection I should like to say that Canadians were shocked to learn, after all the reassuring statements by the Minister of National Defence and the government, and after all the large amounts of money which have been spent on defence, that we had no ground troops we could send when the United Nations asked for them. The people of this country found it impossible to believe that, because the opposite picture had been built up in their minds. They were told we were well prepared; that we had forces of all kinds. If the true picture had been presented to the people, that with the possible exception of one battalion we had no ground troops available to fight anywhere, including Canada, the shock would have been much greater. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. We have not ground forces available to fight anywhere, except that one battalion. The people of Canada do not realize that yet. They think we have the forces available but have kepi them home to defend this country. We could not have sent anything when the United Nations asked for it, except that one battalion, because we did not have troops ready tc fight. By troops ready to fight I mean units up to strength, fully equipped and fullj armed. No other troops can be said to be

ready to fight. There is no use throwing troops into action who are partly equipped and partly trained.
The only information which this house or the general public has received on this matter of troops was given on June 8 last, about a month before the ground troops were requested by the United Nations. This is the only definite information we have ever received about ground troops that even the government pretended were fighting units. I am referring to the airborne brigade group. This is what we were told about the brigade group on June 8, as it appears at page 3377 of Hansard. The minister was answering a question I had asked, and he said:
Then he asked whether the brigade group was up to strength. I can tell him that it is at eighty per cent of the establishment. I might say, since the hon. member has expressed interest in it before, that at the present time we have more trained paratroopers in Canada than landed in the low countries in the German invasion in May, 1940.
A brigade group consists of three infantry battalions, an artillery regiment, an antitank battery, an engineer company, a signal company, and medical and other service units. I happen to know that one battalion was up to strength, so on the basis of the whole brigade being up to eighty per cent of strength the other two battalions must have been short approximately 250 men each, or about two-thirds of strength. We will take it that the other units were all at eighty per cent of strength, although actually I do not think they were. I believe there was a considerable variation. At any rate, there is our situation so far as the three fighting battalions are concerned.
As has been pointed out by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the units of the brigade group have never been brought together for training. They have no signal staff trained to control their operations. They have no headquarters staff, no commander or staff officers trained for the job. The brigade had no exercise as a group, and was therefore in no position to operate as a brigade group. It could not have been sent to Korea, nor could it have fought in this country if it had been required to do so when the demand was made. I only hope that so far as strength and equipment is concerned it is now in a position to do so. I know it is not in a position to do so from the point of view of operating together, because the brigade group has still never been trained together as a formation.
The minister is well aware, as are many other members of the house, of the fact that for over three years, I have pointed out in every defence debate-and other members have done the same thing-that we had no
The Address-Mr. Harkness ground forces ready to fight. This is not a new thing. It has been pointed out in every defence debate for the last three years. We have pounded this thing home time after time. We have pointed out that the Canadian army, which the minister constantly described in round figures as at about 20,000, was chiefly a desk and caretaking establishment, made up of men who were in services of various sorts, but that so far as having a fighting force was concerned, we did not have it.
The whole point is that that realization was never brought home to the people. They did not grasp the fact. They heard the minister's assurances, in speeches all over the country, that we had about 20,000 men in the army, that it was the best-trained army of its size in the world, that it was well equipped, and so forth. But the thing that they were never told, and the thing that they did not realize was that we had at most three to four thousand men in fighting units; that that is all that were available to fight under any circumstances, and furthermore, that those men had never been trained to fight together.
That was the picture and that has- been the picture right up to the present time. We just have not any ground forces in being ready to fight. It is a situation which must be corrected, and corrected immediately.
The type of thing we have had is contained in the latter part of this statement I have just read:
I might say, since the hon. member has expressed interest in it before, that at the present time we have more trained paratroopers in Canada than landed in the low countries in the German invasion in May, 1940.
That statement was given wide publicity. Everybody in this country practically had in his mind the idea that the Germans just rained down paratroopers in the low countries in 1940, that they had thousands and thousands of them. I do not know whether the minister intended to give that impression, but certainly that was the one that was given.
As I say, that statement is typical of the statements he has been making for the last two or three years. He has made statement after statement reassuring the people about what a fine state our defence forces were in, and they were all statements of this kind. They misled people. They gave them completely wrong information about the situation. It is difficult for me to understand *why the minister has done this sort of thing so frequently.
We have the same sort of thing in the speech that the minister made here the day before yesterday in this very debate. He

The Address-Mr. Harkness gave us a list of things which had been ordered, and a list of things that were to be bought, and stuff along that line; and he talked in rather general terms about what a fine condition everything was in. The general impression of the speech on persons who knew little about the matter would be: Well, everything is in good hands; the defence forces are going ahead splendidly; they are going to get sill the equipment they need and all the men they need; everything is fine; we do not need to worry about our defence. That is the impression they would get, whereas exactly the reverse is the situation.
The other day the Prime Minister, in reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), said that if the strictures contained in the amendment that was moved by the leader of the opposition were correct, the government should resign. I do not think there is any question that the strictures with regard to defence are correct. The country has not been adequately looked after in the matter of defence, having regard to the amount of money which has been voted for it. In other words, the funds which have been voted for defence have not been wisely expended. They have not succeeded in giving us a fighting force in being; and that is what is needed when it comes to war. All these other things on which the money has been spent are all very well in their way. They would all be extremely necessary if we had an army of six or seven divisions, but they do not give us anything on the ground, ready to go in with a bayonet or a machine gun and eject any invader who happened to land in this country.
So much for the past, Mr. Speaker. It is the present and the future which we must now consider. To begin with, the government must be much more frank than they have been in the past with this house and with the people of Canada in regard to the state of our defences. We have asked repeatedly for a committee on defence in which the true picture of our forces could be obtained. The need for it is now greater than ever, and I should like to reiterate what the leader of the opposition said yesterday, namely, that such a committee should be set up forthwith and should proceed immediately to the business of finding out just what our defence picture is, just what is necessary to correct the situation in which we find ourselves, and whether or not it is being done.
The whole point is that we have not been able to do that. The Prime Minister said that this House of Commons would be a committee on defence, that the whole assembly would


be a committee on defence. He and everyone else knows that that is not a practicable proposition. We cannot bring the defence chiefs into this house and question them about details on defence matters. In many cases there are things about which we would not want to question them publicly, in any event. It needs no argument on my part or on the part of anyone else to make it quite clear that anything like a reasonable and full examination of defence matters cannot be undertaken by the House of Commons itself. It is just not a practicable proposition.
Recruiting for the special service brigade has been good, and I am extremely glad that is so. Our men answered the appeal of the government, which in this case was couched in terms that persuaded them they were needed. That is what has been necessary in the past, and that is what we have not had in the past. The appeal for recruits which was made last year and the year before for the regular forces, and the appeal for recruits in the reserve units, have not been of a kind which brought home to the individual young man in the street the fact that there was any urgency in the matter, that his services were really needed. As a consequence we did not get a good result.
The minister has constantly claimed, for the last two or three years, that they were getting all the recruits they needed for the regular force, but that they would like to get a few more for the reserve force. I do not think they ever got all they wanted. In fact I know they did not for the permanent force, and they certainly got only a trickle for the reserve force. The men who were brought into the reserve force were brought in, in my experience, which is considerable, almost entirely by men who were already in units. Any action taken by the government had little effect and brought in few recruits. The recruits who were brought in were brought in as a result of individual effort. As a matter of fact, many of the reserve units at the present time are going to desperate lengths to try to get recruits. They are resorting to bribery and so on; they are practically paying people to join up.
That is a situation which we should not have in this country, and I am convinced that it is a situation which we do not need to have. It seems to me that the government must make the appeal in such terms and must show the urgency of this matter in such a way that we shall get a response. I am convinced that we shall get a response if the young men of this country are convinced that they are needed, and that is something of which so far they have not been convinced.

It has been apparent for some considerable time that the existing dangerous situation in the world made it necessary that we have in Canada for the defence of Canada at least one division of regular troops. I think that is a minimum; there should not be any question about it. I doubt whether the minister would argue very much on that point at the present time. In addition to that, however, the really basic defence of the country, in the case of a general war breaking out, must be the reserve army. The reserve army can constitute that basic defence only if it is fairly well up to strength.
We have in this country left over from the last war sufficient equipment of the type that was used at that time-it is true it is not the most up-to-date equipment in the world, but it is sufficiently up to date for the job, namely, the basic defence of this country. What we need is the men. It is the government's responsibility to take measures to get these men, to get them into the permanent force, and to get them into the reserve units. So far that responsibility has not been met.
The minister talked in vague terms about the splendid summer training that the reserve force units received. He said that the reserve force units would be strengthened in the coming year. A general statement of that kind means nothing. It means nothing to me; it means nothing to anybody in Canada, and it will probably result in no action. What we want to know here, what we should know, is how these reserve units are to be strengthened. I have pointed out that the problem is to get men into them. How do the government propose to get these men in? I repeat, they failed to get them in the past because they did not carry home to the people the urgency of the matter, and that must be done.
In his statement the minister said a good deal about the increase in naval strength. He spoke about the number of ships that were now in commission, the number being built, the number being recommissioned, and so forth. I was glad to hear that. I trust that there will be no undue delay in getting these ships finished and getting the ones which have been out of commission recommissioned and in action.
It is all very well to hear those fine stories that we will do this, that and the other thing, but I should like to have something much more specific and definite as to the approximate dates on which these things will be done. The same thing applies to the air force. We have quite a few figures in regard to the increased jet engine production which was to take place, and the number of jet planes which we would have. When shall we have
692&2-11
The Address-Mr. Harkness them? That is what I should like to know. How many shall we have on various dates?
The minister said that a hundred Mustangs had been purchased from the United States. Mustangs have proved fine for strafing ground troops and for close support of the infantry. In Korea they have been very useful. The reason they have been so useful there is that the enemy had no jet fighters to oppose them. Had there been any jet fighter strength on the part of the North Koreans, those Mustangs would have been shot out of the air very quickly.
The provision of the hundred Mustangs is a reasonable step to take as an interim measure, but it should not be represented to the people of Canada as a great step forward in the defence of this country. These Mustang fighters will fill an interim need until we get jet fighters, but I hope the period during which they have to fill that need is short. They could help if we had sufficient jet fighters to engage more or less the majority that the enemy could put up at any time. They could be useful for the purpose for which they are being used now in North Korea, namely, for ground strafing, and so forth. But let no one fool himself by thinking that these Mustangs are fighter planes which are capable of defending this country against a modernly equipped enemy.
No objection has ever been raised in this house to voting the money asked for defence needs. The criticisms in the matter of defence have all been directed to how the money was spent and whether we were getting value for it. It is now apparent to everyone in this country that we were not getting value for it, and that it was not being spent in the best way possible.
There is no question at the present moment about the house voting the large sums, which, as is indicated in today's Votes and Proceedings, we shall be asked to vote next week for defence. However, when we vote these sums we want to know in detail how the money has been spent in the past, and what these increases will give us in the matter of definite protection-not vague general statements.
As I said before, the speech of the Minister of National Defence was chiefly a list of equipment; as somebody observed to me afterwards, it sounded much like a quartermaster's indent, combined with a list of things which are going to be done. That is not what we want. We want to know definitely what has been done, and on what dates other things will be done. By "dates" I do not mean down to the minute or the hour; I mean approximately.
When the appropriation bill comes up we must have this detailed information. At the
162	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Prudham present moment I do not propose to go into further details so far as the defence situation is concerned. But I shall certainly reserve the right to ask questions and get all the information which appears to be necessary when the appropriation bill is before us.


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, I .do not pretend to be an expert on national defence or international affairs, but I should like to make a few remarks on the general economic and production frontier at home in Canada.
In my youth I learned a trade. I carried the tools, and I am very proud to say that I carried a union card. Over the years I have slowly been able to accumulate working capital and arrived at the place where I had several hundred employees. I think I know the views of the workingman at first hand, and I know the problems of meeting a payroll.
I believe that the average man in every walk of life is honest and anxious not only to make a decent living for himself and his family but to make a real contribution to the welfare of the community and the country.
As a result of the depression of the thirties there has been a widespread fear of unemployment. During those dreadful years and since, many theorists with good intentions have preached that overproduction was the cause of our troubles and the cause of our unemployment. With the advent of the machine and improved techniques it was only reasonable that the worker should expect that some of the benefits of the improved techniques and machines and the savings in time should be passed on to him.
During the war the demand for shorter hours was forgotten. The people of this country went all-out to produce the weapons and the sinews of war. Despite the greatly reduced supply of manpower, production in this country went to heights which were thought impossible before that time. After the war, and with the return of the men from the forces, there was great fear that we would have another period of unemployment. Largely as a result of that fear trade unions and people in other walks of life began to think in terms of shorter hours of work, in order that the available employment might be distributed among as many people as possible.
Since the war we have enjoyed a period of almost full employment, and with greater prosperity than this country has ever known before. The government, trade unions and business management can take a great deal of credit and satisfaction from the splendid way Canada has emerged from a wartime to a peacetime economy. I believe the fact that we work shorter hours has had a beneficial


effect upon the attainment of full employment since the war. In my opinion that same condition of shorter hours has also had its drawbacks. A shorter working period with the same or higher pay inevitably adds to the cost of production, and higher costs to the consumer.
Full employment has reduced competition in the labour field, and the great post-war demand for consumer goods has reduced competition in business. Since the war, with the backlog of demands for consumer goods, and employment at a level higher than we have ever known it before, there has been a measure of inefficiency all through our production and distribution system which, before the war, by means of competition was kept at a minimum. This has all contributed to higher prices for the consumer.
Highly desirable social services have been initiated on a national scale and they, too, have contributed to the higher costs charged the consumer. I am not finding fault with those social services. They are most desirable. We are blessed with great resources in Canada, and produce food and other products which the rest of the world requires and is prepared to buy. We are becoming more self-sufficient in manufactured goods and, if left to our own devices, I am sure we could continue to raise our standard of living and improve our social services without interruption.
However, the fact that we have attained the position of one of the great nations of the world, the fact that we are assuming the stature of a first-class nation, not only places world obligations upon us but also invites the envy of other nations. Our population is small. No other thirteen and a half million people anywhere in the world have a greater heritage than we have in Canada. While in other parts of the world there is overcrowding, so that according to our standards the people must live under subnormal conditions, we cannot sidestep world obligations.
In the world of nations the law of the jungle still applies. There are still aggressors who have the ambition to dominate the world. Reluctant though we are to admit it, we must face that challenge and must realize that only the fittest nations are going to survive. The aggressor is already on the rampage. Even now our armed forces are fighting and some of them dying. We are reluctant to accept the reality that we are going to have not only to prepare our defences at home but to be ready to meet the aggressor in other parts of the world.
The point I make is that however beneficial and desirable shorter hours of work

have been to our post-war economy, I do not believe such a condition should even be considered when our very survival is threatened. I believe every workman should be paid an adequate wage. I believe industry and thrift in the field of labour and business should be rewarded, but I also believe that we are only kidding ourselves if we think we can work shorter hours and maintain a higher standard of living, and at the same time defend our country and help defend the other free nations of the world. There is a danger that within a very short time we will be fighting for our very lives. Would it not be wisdom for this country now, before our backs are to the wall, to forget about shorter hours, and to go to a forty-four or forty-eight hour week? The price of freedom is, in my opinion, not money, but production. Maximum national security can be obtained only by every section of the community going all-out in an effort to produce. I am also convinced that greater production at this time would help to stop the upward spiral of prices.
I know there are hon. members in the house who advocate that the economy of the country should be placed again under rigid control. I believe there is a better way of attaining the desired result. It is my view that the people of Canada could do it voluntarily, and I say controls should be avoided as long as possible.
It has long been recognized that a voluntary fighting force has better morale than a conscripted force. The same applies to the home front. If we can make an all-out effort voluntarily it would be much better than if we are forced by law or through the circumstance of war.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has stated that the next ten months will be critical months. I believe if the people of Canada should now forget about shorter hours and go all-out to produce, not only could we maintain our present standard of living but we would have a much better chance of defending our country and playing our part in the defence of the free world. In my view the sooner we realize this the better will our chances of survival be. I may be pessimistic, but that is the way I feel about it. The barbarian is looking down upon us and grinning to himself. Great numbers of the peoples of the world are living under a police state. They do not know what the forty-hour week means. We are greatly outnumbered, our chief advantages being our industrial and productive capacity, our intelligence and the fact that we are a free people.
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
In my view members of parliament should tell the people of the seriousness of the international situation and now, while there is still time, urge them to make an all-out effort.
As reported at page 97 of Hansard for August 31, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) says:
In such circumstances there is bound to be sc temptation to settle back into complacency and' unconcern when events beyond our borders seem so complex and so intractable; to hope that we can enjoy immunity from both obligations and misfortunes. Such a course would be fatal in the face? of the present menace to our security and to our very existence; when meeting that menace we must make a defence effort far greater than we have ever attempted before in peacetime.
The minister was speaking seriously and sincerely when he made that statement. I am convinced that our only hope of preventing war and of surviving it, if and when it comes, is through harder work, longer hours and greater production.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like also to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on the account he gave us on Thursday of the Korean situation and also on the good work which he has done in his department and as a representative of this country at international conferences. Just how much better his work would have been had he been a member of a less reactionary government, only those of us who know him best can judge.
He told us on Thursday that Korea must be the centre of our attention these days. He said that it is there that the struggle with soviet communism has come completely into the open and its nature most clearly shown. He turned then to the events which had led up to the present crisis in Korea. Because it is important to all of us who will undoubtedly meet in our constituencies with many of those well-meaning people to whom the minister referred as idealists and who are so much concerned about the crisis facing Canada in this connection, even at the risk of repeating some of the things the minister said I propose to summarize again, the course of events.
Exactly one week after Russia's declara>-tion of war on Japan in August, 1945, Japan capitulated. One of the few places which Russia had been able to invade during that intervening week was Korea. Korea is ai country the size of Great Britain with ai population of thirty million people. It had lost its independence and for forty years had.

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy been a satellite of Japan. While the Russians were fighting down from the north during that week before capitulation the United States troops had landed in Korea and were fighting up from the south.
When Japan acknowledged defeat the question then arose as to which army should accept the surrender of the Koreans and this problem was solved by drawing an imaginary line across the country at the 38th parallel of latitude. That line roughly bisects the country with approximately 20,000,000 of the 30,000,000 people living south of the line but with much of the country's mineral and industrial wealth lying north of that 38th parallel.
Back in 1943 before Russia had intervened in the war the United Kingdom and the United States, after the Cairo declaration of December, 1943, declared jointly that in due course Korea should become free and independent. Russia joined with the United Kingdom and the United States in reaffirming that declaration at Potsdam in July, 1945. When the shooting was over the three powers met in Moscow and agreed in December, 1945, to establish a four-power trusteeship of Korea, the four powers being Great Britain, the United States, China and Russia.
It was agreed that in five years the trustees were to hand over Korea to a democratic, independent Korean government. To begin with, a joint United States-Soviet commission was to take over and set up in Korea a provisional government which was to cooperate with the trustees. This Moscow agreement was also signed by the Soviet union, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Then the trouble began. The Soviet union would accept no Koreans for the provisional government except communist members. In May, 1946, the attempt to set up a provisional government was abandoned. The United States then proposed a four-power conference on the question of Korea, but Molotov said, "No". The United States then brought the problem to the assembly of the United Nations and in November, 1947, the United Nations decided by forty-three votes, with the Soviet bloc being absent, that a Korean national government should be formed and that the armies of both rival powers should withdraw within ninety days. A United, Nations temporary commission was sent out to supervise the election.
By this time there was an iron curtain across Korea. The Soviet occupation authorities refused to permit the United Nations commissioners to cross the 38th parallel. The conflict from then on became not

a conflict between North and South Korea, not a conflict between the United States and Russia; it became a conflict between the Soviet union and the United Nations. The United Nations did the only thing they could do short of invading North Korea with United1 Nations forces, of which there were none. On May 10, 1948, they set about to hold elections in the south, leaving vacancies to be filled by elections in the north at a later date.
In the meantime the Soviet occupation forces had hastily formed a puppet government and appealed to the South Koreans to boycott the elections. In spite of that appeal and in the face of intimidation the fact is that 80 per cent of those in South Korea who were eligible to vote went to the polls. One hundred of the 300 seats were left vacant to be filled at a later date by members from North Korea.
Three months after that election, in August, 1948, the Soviet authorities of North Korea and their puppet government organized an election in North Korea. As is usual in those circumstances, communists and their friends were elected.
There were then two governments in the country, each claiming to represent the entire country. In December, 1948, the general assembly of the United Nations decided to recognize the South Korean government. Needless to say the Soviet bloc opposed this and refused to accept the decision of the majority. Both the occupying armies were withdrawn, the Russians from the north and the United Nations from the south. Only the United Nations commissioners remained, their task being to unify the country under a single democratic government.
The first report that that commission made to the United Nations on September 1, 1948, confessed that every effort to make contact with North Korea had been fruitless. It went on to say that the most courteous appeals for facilities that would permit a visit to the north and allow the initiation of the subject of unification had been without reply.
With the armies of their protectors no longer on the spot, the two governments sought guarantees of assistance from the rival powers. In March, 1949, the North Korean prime minister went to Moscow to sign a ten-year treaty of economic and cultural co-operation with the soviet, which made North Korea just as much a part of the communist family as eastern Germany. In January of that year Dr. Rhee, the prime minister of South Korea, signed an agreement

with the United States for the receipt of arms under the mutual defence assistance program.
This was the position on June 25 when the troops of the north, plentifully armed with up-to-date Russian weapons, advanced across the 38th parallel. A republic of Korea existed with a government in control to the south of the 38th parallel. It had been established after the holding of free elections, supervised by a United Nations commission, in which it had been intended that North Korea would take part. Two-thirds of the population lived in the area administered by this government. It was recognized as the lawful government of Korea by the United Nations general assembly, by the United Kingdom and eleven other nations. It had an agreement with the United States for the provision of arms.
North of the 38th parallel was the government known as the democratic people's republic of Korea, a communist government, also claiming to be the lawful government of Korea. It had been established in the first place by the soviet occupation authorities who had refused to allow the ten million inhabitants of this part of Korea to take part in the May, 1948, elections held at the request and under the supervision of the United Nations. It was recognized only by the Soviet union and members of the soviet bloc. It had a ten-year agreement for economic co-operation with the Soviet union.
There was also in the country the United Nations commission on Korea. Its principal task was to resolve the differences between the two governments in order to bring into being a united democratic Korea.
As soon as Washington heard of the fighting on the morning of June 25, the United States authorities asked for an emergency meeting of the security council, which was held the same afternoon. Every one of the eleven members, except the soviet delegate, turned up. They were the United Kingdom, United States, France, China-still represented by the Chiang Kai-shek government-Norway, Cuba, Egypt, Ecuador, India and Yugoslavia. By nine votes to zero, Yugoslavia abstaining, the security council called for an immediate ceasefire. "This action constitutes a breach of the peace", the council told the world, which had already reached that impression. The council went on to demand the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all North Korean forces to the 38th parallel. Then, in what may prove to be a historic passage, it called upon all members of the United Nations "to render every assistance to the United Nations, and to refrain from giving assistance to the North Korean authorities."
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
It was in accordance with these instructions that United States Superforts went into action in far-away Korea and the Royal Navy placed its services at the disposal of General MacArthur. Canada and other members of the United Nations came forward with offers of help. We are all in full accord with the action taken by the United Nations in its attempt to call a halt to communist aggression. As was said in this chamber by a number of members last spring, it is very encouraging indeed to know that the free nations of the world may learn to co-operate with one another in providing some measure of collective support for the defence of freedom and the maintenance of peace.
Ever since the first world war and the old league of nations we had been paying lip service to an international police force armed to restrain aggression and to establish the rule of law among nations. In sheer self-defence of our way of life we are now driven to making a beginning at providing for the United Nations the military forces that were visualized in the charter. It is easy to be critical of the shortcomings of the United Nations in' its handling of the Korean and other inters national situations. The United Nations Organization has probably gone as far and as fast as its constituent nations would permit. This ideal of creating one world in which all nations can live in peace with one another, or even the basic purpose for which the United Nations was established, that of maintaining peace and preventing wars, is difficult to achieve under any circumstances. It is particularly difficult to achieve when one nation, and that one of the most powerful military nations of the world, together with its satellites sets out to conquer the world, and to conquer it without the slightest regard for any rules of the game and by whatever means may serve its purpose.
That is the situation in today's world in which the United Nations is seeking to function. Democracy as we know it, democracy with all its faults, is just as definitely engaged in the life and death struggle with communism today as if we were actually engaged in a world war with Russia. The fight is on for us and those who believe with us in democratic parliaments, democratic trade unions and all the other institutions that democratic peoples have evolved through the years. The conflict is for the survival of this particular way of life. The question that each one of us must ask and answer for himself is whether or not he wants a communist-controlled world.
No one who has even the most superficial acquaintance with communism doubts for one moment that the rallying call of communists the world over is the conquest of the world for communism. Do we want that kind of world, or do we want to salvage the best of

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy our democratic institutions and work for their improvement? Those forces in our society which have through the centuries sought to liberate the souls and bodies of men and women from slavery and oppression are today facing one of the most momentous crises of history. We are living in one of the most crucial periods of human history. Our success or failure in this crisis will determine whether civilization as we know it survives or whether we enter upon another of those dark ages such as have marked the course of human history in the past. We face in fact a twofold threat, first whether we proceed to annihilate one another in atomic warfare, and whether in surviving we survive in freedom or slavery of soul and body.
Two obligations rest upon the free people today. The first is that of preserving democracy and democratic institutions; not because of our belief that those institutions are perfect, but because we believe that under our democratic system we have the freedom and opportunities necessary for growth and improvement. The second is that of avoiding the catastrophe of another world war, whether it be atomic or any other type. Whether we can fulfil our first and second obligations at the same time is something that only history can tell. Certainly it is the hope and prayer of millions of people that the war in Korea is not the beginning of a general world war.
This, however, is also true. Repulsive as war may be, and costly as it may be in human lives and human suffering, there are some values in life greater than life itself. There are values for which men and women throughout history have been willing to lay down their lives. To meet the danger of a communist-dominated world we must be prepared to meet force with force whenever force is the means used by the enemy, as was the case in Korea. As a nation we must be prepared to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to fulfil our obligations, and to do our utmost to preserve our way of life.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) pointed out, we dare not rely on military preparation alone. Herbert Morrison, of the British Labour government, speaking in Manchester on July 2 said:
I sincerely believe that only by showing that the free democracies will take a stand can we hope to convince disturbers of the peace that aggression does not pay.
He went on to express in the following words the sound advice given to this house by the minister for external affairs on Thursday. He said:
While armed opposition is necessary in reply to armed aggression the path we and other like-thinking people mu-t follow is in removing the causes of
[Mr Noseworthy.]
communism, by alleviating the malnutrition and misery that affects so many millions of people, particularly throughout Asia.
While we can all congratulate this government on its action in recruiting and equipping a special force to be placed at the service of the United Nations, while we can congratulate the government on the example it has given to the rest of the world in offering to make that force available to the United Nations for service anywhere, we could wish that our government had shown more leadership in fulfilling the second requirement set forth by its own minister- that of removing the cause of communism both at home and abroad. The rising cost of living at home, the unemployment that faced thousands of our people last winter, the deplorable housing conditions under which our people have been suffering for years, the profiteering that is taking place today with government acquiescence, the lack of adequate protection against sickness and old age, are all factors which in this country contribute to the spread of communism and which it is the responsibility of the government to remove.
In the international sphere this government's refusal to support the food and agriculture organization's plans for distributing food to needy people, its opposition to the United Nations proposal for international action to maintain full employment, and the insignificant contribution made so far by Canada to plans for economic aid to the underdeveloped areas of the world, are all illustrations of the failure on the part of this government to meet the urgent need for constructive action in that sphere. It is our failure to meet the challenge of communism on all fronts at home, and to show that democracy can do in reality what communism merely promises to do, that encourages the spread of communism in this country. It does more than that. The presence of want and injustice in a land of plenty and freedom creates a greater sympathy for communism among many Canadians who are not communists than is warranted.
Today Russia and the other communist countries dare not reveal to the world the actual conditions under which their people live. Nor do they dare to let their people know the conditions under which we on this continent live. They are obliged to keep knowledge of themselves from the rest of the world, and knowledge of us from their people by surrounding themselves by the so-called iron curtain. We have only their promises and little factual information about the condition of life in the iron curtain countries. Were we more aggressive in sharing with all our

own people, and with the needy in every part of the world, the abundance we can produce in this country, communism would have little appeal to Canadians. As it is today we have thousands of Canadian citizens confused in their thinking regarding the promises of communism, partly through lack of information regarding communism and partly through our failure to provide a standard of living for our people that we are capable of providing.
Many thousands of Canadians, for example, signed a petition to abolish the bomb. Thousands of Canadians signed that petition in good faith and from a sincere desire to maintain peace. Little do they know of the efforts that have been made by the United Nations to secure the abolition of the bomb upon the only conditions its abolition could possibly be achieved, that of United Nations control and adequate inspection. Little do those people know the ends to which Russia has gone to frustrate all those efforts made by the United Nations. I want to see the bomb abolished, as does every other member in this house, and I am sure every good Canadian, for that matter. We want to be sure that present stocks are destroyed in Russia as well as elsewhere, and that measures are provided to make sure that no secret manufacture of the bomb can be undertaken anywhere. More than that, I am sure we would all be happy to see an effective disarmament program in effect throughout the world to render any war, atomic or otherwise, impossible. We must, however, take into account the kind of world in which we are living today. Certainly it would be evidence of nothing but weakness on the part of the democracies to disarm themselves of atomic or other weapons until democracy's greatest enemy is prepared to co-operate with the United Nations for the prevention of war.
Many of these people to whom I have referred are also requesting that the Korean situation be settled by a process of conciliation. I, in common with other Canadians, prefer to see any dispute, either domestic or international, settled by conciliation wherever that is possible rather than resort to force. Here again it would merely be a sign of weakness to subject ourselves to the conciliation of our dispute solely on the enemy's terms. Aggression must learn that aggression does not pay. To meet the challenge of communism on all fronts and to preserve our democratic way of life we require sacrifice, just as every cause worth defending has always meant sacrifice. We must first make democracy work at home so efficiently that our people will feel amply justified in making the necessary sacrifices. Nor must those sacrifices fall entirely or
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy even largely on those who enlist for services abroad and their families. Business, agriculture and labour must all bear their share. These together with our press, our radio, our churches and other great national organizations have a responsible role to play in what Dean Acheson calls total diplomacy. All must agree to concert their efforts in this one overriding task. The task will not be easy. Miss Dorothy Thompson, in writing for the American people a few days ago on the inroads which communism has made in Asiatic countries, said:
We have already lost Asia. Stalin has not won it. He wants us to win it for him.
Whether or not the democracies have yet lost Asia may be a debatable point. Certain it is that unless great care is taken we shall lose it to the communists, and we could still lose it even if we won a military victory in Korea.
On that point I should like to quote a brief passage from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, on Thursday, August 17. The article has this to say:
It is clear that the mass of Koreans-whose division into north and south is temporary and artificial -have not welcomed the Americans as "liberators." On the contrary, it is certain that a vast majority of them see the Americans as interlopers and imperialists. Russian propaganda to that effect has been dinned into their ears and, quite evidently, has inspired the north Koreans to fight with great enthusiasm. According to Tokyo reporters, counterpropaganda from American or UN sources is not just ineffective-it doesn't exist. The Russians are not being answered. An American correspondent in Tokyo said on the air the other night that he and his colleagues had given up in "disgust" asking general headquarters what its end military objective was. As for the political aims of the United Nations in Korea, they have never been defined.
The editorial goes on to say:
It would be perfectly natural, then, for the Koreans to assume that the sole purpose of the Americans is to restore the Syngman Rhee government at Seoul. They know that this regime was corrupt and oppressive, treating its political prisoners with harsh brutality, and that it failed to carry out promised land reforms and other economic improvements. Can anyone be surprised, then, that the Korean masses have failed to greet the Americans with garlands of flowers and hymns of praise?
The west, and that means chiefly the United States, must offer the Asian peoples a program and a vision just as heart-warming as communism is supplying.
It is that point that I should like to call to the attention of the minister and, through him in his office as our representative at the United Nations, to the United Nations. It will be much more difficult for the western world to sell that program to the east than it will be for Russia to sell her program. The experience of western capitalistic imperialism which Asiatic people have had in the

The Address-Mr. Hees past has not been such as to inspire confidence in western policies. Somehow, if we are not to turn Asia to communism and if the blood shed in Korea is not to be shed in vain, we must find some way of undoing the evil that has been done in the past and of inspiring some degree of confidence in these people.
That will mean assistance in relieving hunger and oppression. We shall not gain the confidence of Koreans if they believe our purpose there is to restore the regime of Mr. Rhee. Nor shall we gain the confidence of the Chinese if they are led to believe that our interest in China is the restoration of Chiang. We must assist in the creation of economic, political, social and psychological conditions that will create and strengthen confidence in the democratic way of life. We must do what we can to help these people to help themselves, even to the extent of gifts of food where such gifts are necessary and to the extent of buying their products in order to enable them to pay for ours in turn, even to the extent that some of our own industries may suffer as a consequence. That will be a part of the cost that we must pay.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to strike a slightly more optimistic note. All is not lost nor is there any good reason why democracy should continue to lose ground to communism. The non-communist countries together have two-thirds of the world's population, three-fourths of the world's economic productive powers and a potential preponderance of the world's military powers. They have the highest standard of living. They have the greatest ability to help undeveloped areas to achieve higher standards of living. They have on their side the appeal of independence and national loyalties. They have the greatest attraction of all, human freedom. With these forces on our side, we can win if only we can succeed in showing eastern people, attacked by communism, that our object is to preserve for them that human freedom and independence and not to conquer them, to impose upon them our way of life or to exploit their resources for western profit.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on August 18 last I wrote to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and, as a member of our present reserve forces, stated to him why I believe that our forces today are totally inadequate for defending this country. I also stated specifically what I considered should be done in order to fill these deficiencies. As I have had, to date, no answer from the minister, I am going to state again the points which I made in my
[Mr Noseworthy.]
letter to him, in the hope that I may receive an answer on the floor of this house. In my letter to the minister I said the following:
A few days ago, our government authorized the formation of a United Nations brigade. This step was endorsed by the vast majority of Canadians, because it enables us to live up to our obligations as a member of the United Nations.
This is one important step. The next, and even more important, is to prepare an armed force so that we can defend this country against the kind of attack which could be brought to bear against our shores at any time.
The possibility of this country becoming the Belgium of the third world war is a very real one. The oft-avowed aim of the communists is world domination, and this can only be accomplished by the subjugation of the United States. Canada would be the pathway for such an attack, and the possibility of this country becoming a battleground at some future date is something which every Canadian must bring himself to face.
First, then, what kind of force must we be prepared to meet? The Korean war has taught us that when the communists attack, their forces are well trained, well equipped, well directed, and in sufficient numbers to maintain the momentum of the attack. If they attack our west coast, they will do so in large numbers, and with heavy equipment. The ease with which such an attack can be launched from a distance of many hundreds of miles was demonstrated by the allied landings in Sicily in the summer of 1943. In that invasion, the first Canadian division sailed direct from England to the Sicilian beaches, a distance of many hundreds of miles by water. An invasion force of this kind could easily be protected by the large fleet of super submarines-both Russian and German-which the communists are known to have.
What, then, have we available to meet such an attack if one should come? The present brigade which is being recruited for Korea is for service in other parts of the world. When that force leaves this country, the only force which will be available for repelling an attack is one brigade group, consisting of 4,500 men, or less than one-third of a division.
As was pointed out last night by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), this brigade group has no headquarters, and has no means of going into action as a formation until considerably further preparations have been made.
A force of that size could do no more than fight a brief delaying action against the size and type of force which could be landed.
In addition to the permanent brigade group which I have mentioned, we have our active reserve. As these reserve forces are up to no more than one-quarter strength, have very little equipment, and have never trained as complete battle formations, a minimum of six months to one year would be required before any reserve unit could take the field as an effective fighting force.
With what, then, do we plan to meet an attack if one should come? At the present time it is obvious that we have no plan, and equally obvious that, without one, we are living in a fool's paradise. I believe that we must recruit, train and equip a force which could be immediately available to lfieet and halt an attack, at least until American reinforcements arrive. The absolute minimum force which could do this would be, I believe, one armoured division, or an infantry division supported by an armoured brigade.

In order that such a force should be raised and maintained at the minimum cost to the taxpayer, I propose the following plan:
1st. The present recruiting and training plan should be expanded to include volunteers for a special reserve force, which would be known as "The Special Active Army Reserve".
2nd. Those who volunteer would receive training under active army conditions and rates of pay for whatever period the Department of National Defence considers necessary to bring them to a state of fighting fitness.
3rd. Legislation should be re-enacted to protect those who enlist by ensuring their release for necessary training or service by their present employers, without jeopardizing their job or seniority.
4th. Suitably located units of the present reserve army would be selected to organize 1st battalions or regiments, as an active army reserve, and continue their present units as 2nd battalions or regiments of the reserve army.
5th. Upon completion of the initial training period, personnel would join the active army reserve unit nearest to their home, and continue their training on a part-time basis while continuing to work at their regular employment.
6th. Terms of service would be for duty as and when required by the Department of National Defence, in any area. When on duty, active army regulations would apply, including casualty pensions.
7th. After the initial training period has been completed, a retaining fee of $30 a month for officers and $20 a month for other ranks should be paid, in addition to pay for intermittent training periods. This will help to attract battle-tried veterans, and make the service attractive to new recruits.
8th. Active army reserve battalions and regiments should be supplied with a full-time skeleton staff to maintain equipment, which should be procured at the earliest possible date, and in sufficient quantity, to place units on a war footing when ordered on service.
The initial training and equipping of this force would cost a considerable amount of money, but the overhead required to maintain the skeleton staffs and house the equipment, plus the yearly compensation, would make available an effective defence force at a minimum cost, and ensure its readiness on very short notice. The fact that this force would be considered as an integral part of our first line defence would have a strong appeal to the best type of fighting soldier, and the retaining fee when not on full-time duty would be an excellent drawing card for new recruits. In addition to the army, there is no reason why the plan I have outlined could not be applied to the navy and the air force in the same manner as to the army.
This is the only way in which we can prepare ourselves to repel armed aggression against this country if it should come. It is also our best insurance against being attacked, because the only language which the communists understand is strength and preparedness. If we are strong and prepared, we are far less likely to be attacked than if we remain in the weak and vulnerable position we "are in today.
We can never permit a recurrence of what happened in the last war, when young men with little training and equipment were sent to Hong Kong, and as reinforcements to Italy and northwest Europe. Let us train and equip ourselves now before it is too late.
I am submitting this plan for preparedness to the government, as a veteran of the last war, as a member of the present reserve army, and as a Canadian who wishes to see his country remain free. I sincerely hope that the Minister of
The Address-Mr. Hees
National Defence will see fit to put this plan, or some better plan, into operation before world events catch up with us.


Brooke Claxton: Does the hon. member say he sent that to me?


George Harris Hees: I sent it to the minister, and his office acknowledged receiving it about ten days ago, stating that it would be brought to the minister's attention immediately. I have received no answer.


Brooke Claxton: I must say I got it in the form of a radio speech. I did not realize it was a letter. If it was a letter I apologize to the hon. member. I got it as a radio speech.


George Harris Hees: I sent a letter to the minister stating that these were opinions which I held and which I had expressed in a radio speech, which in no way minimized the suggestions I made. I said I would appreciate very much his comments, and that I sincerely believed this plan merited consideration by the government. I sent a copy of the same letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and received a prompt reply saying that this matter would be brought to the attention of the government. I am reciting these points at the present time because in my view this is an exceedingly important matter. I would like to see the government consider it and either produce a plan of this kind, or some better one-and I am not partial to mine- at the earliest opportunity.
On Tuesday last when the Prime Minister was reciting the series of events leading up to, and including, the rail strike, he told us that when the strike occurred the government was taken completely by surprise, as he believed everybody was. Those were his words as stated last Tuesday and reported at page 13 of Hansard. He said the rail strike had caught the government completely by surprise because they had believed it could not happen here.
If that kind of thinking is applied to national defence, it will be a disaster. That such thinking does exist in the Department of National Defence was made evident by the minister's speech two days ago, when he outlined the situation as one completely in control, exactly as the country would wish it to be, and left the impression that no Canadian had anything to worry about.


Brooke Claxton: Nothing of the sort was said.


George Harris Hees: This is a matter of tremendous urgency. We are met here to hear from the government what plans they are ready to put forward for the adequate defence of this country-a defence which I believe has been demonstrated to be in a very shaky condition. I appeal to the Minister of National Defence

The Address-Mr. MacKenzie and the Prime Minister to lay before the house at the earliest possible moment adequate plans for the defence of this country.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne I realize that this is a special session of parliament called to deal chiefly with two urgent problems that concerned the government and people of Canada. As one of those problems has already been dealt with, I should like at this time to make a few observations respecting our foreign affairs policy, particularly as it applies to the situation in the Far East and the Korean fields.
I must confess I have been amazed at the hon. members who have been giving such expert advice on this subject. I am reminded of the old adage that says that the less a man knows about a subject the more he is inclined to speak about it. Keeping that in mind, and applying it to myself on this occasion, I shall be brief in my remarks.
I followed the address in the house last Thursday delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I have since read his speech as it is printed in Hansard. In my opinion he gave a comprehensive report of the Korean and Far Eastern situation of which I believe any reasonable man would approve. May I commend him for his frankness and his up-to-the-moment analysis of the situation in that quarter. In my opinion Canada is fortunate indeed to have a man of his character, diplomacy and ability in a position of such importance at this time of world crisis.
While I spent a little over two years in the Orient, it was not my privilege to visit Korea, although I did have some close contacts with the situation there. An American citizen whom I knew very well and who lived in China for many years and had married a Polish girl was engaged in the same branch of UNRRA as that with which I was associated. After a year with UNRRA he accepted a similar post with the United States government to do the same type of work in the Korean field. He left his family in China, and proceeded to that post. This man made several visits to Shanghai while I was there in 1947, and I had frequent talks with him when he came to China regarding the situation in Korea.
He claimed that conditions in Korea were quite similar to those in many parts of China. It was his feeling at that time that it was a serious mistake to attempt to divide Korea into two parts. The Koreans are an oriental


race, having many of the same characteristics, including skin, hair and other features, as the Chinese. Their background is chiefly from that origin.
Korea is a comparatively small country which was taken over by the Japanese about forty years ago. The Japanese virtually owned it for the last thirty-five years. Japan was master, and practically made slaves out of the Koreans, exploiting them in every possible way. At the conclusion of the war the army commands, chiefly those of Russia and the United States, divided Korea into two parts, the northern and southern sections. I believe that division was made at the 38th parallel, with the Russians being given jurisdiction in the northern area and the United States in the southern. It should be remembered that the northern part contains large areas of rough country. While it is greater in extent, the south has approximately twice the population of the north. I believe early in 1948 free elections were held, and two separate republics were formed. That was a great mistake as few people cou'ld see any good reason why Korea should be divided into two parts. If that country had been given its freedom as one republic war probably would have been avoided.
However, that is water under the bridge and the problem now is how to deal with the situation that faces us today. After the election of 1948 Dr. Syngman Rhee was chosen as the first president. He had been a nationalist patriot who had fled Korea almost 30 years before and resided in the United States during that time. He had made an attempt to set up some form of government in the United States claiming to represent Korea. He was reactionary in character.
With a few of his loyal lieutenants he ruled South Korea with an iron hand and put literally hundreds of people in jail simply because they objected to or criticized his government. He became so unpopular that in May of this year he was defeated in parliament and was unable to get sufficient support to carry on. It is not hard to realize why the South Koreans have not supported the armies during the present war as was expected and have left the United States to fight the battle alone to a large extent.
It is true that as members of the Atlantic pact we must be prepared to fight aggression anywhere and must go to the aid of the armies fighting in South Korea as quickly as possible. In this connection Canada will do her full share. But we might as well face

the facts of what we are up against in Korea. The government there was not satisfactory and the Kremlin capitalized on that fact in a big way. The fight there will be long and arduous but there is no question about who will eventually win.
I should like to say a word with regard to the situation in Formosa and the China field. The minister of external affairs stated in the house a few days ago, if I got it correctly, that in his opinion the greatest danger of outbreaks similar to that which has occurred in Korea was in Germany, Iran and Indo-China. We must be prepared for such emergencies. While I am aware that that situation exists, it is my opinion that the greatest danger, one that might well lead to a world war, is to be found in Formosa.
I am familiar to some extent with the situation there as I spent two years in the China field. I have references here to the work I did in China by the director-general of the United Nations relief and rehabilitation organization in Washington, D.C. I have another reference by a colonel who was the inspector-general and investigator at that time. I have still another reference from the China office. I am reluctant to put these on the record but I must say that I am happy to have them. In fact I have one framed and hanging above my mantel at home.


An hon. Member:: Put them on the record.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The story of Formosa is a sad one. For 50 years that country was in the hands of the Japanese who exploited its people the same as they had exploited the people of Korea. The people there are Chinese in origin. We had 15 regional offices set up in the China field to help rehabilitate the war-ravaged and devastated areas in China, and Formosa happened to be one point where such an office was set up. It has a population of about 7 million people. I recall that figure because it happens to be about one-half the population of Canada. In the Cairo agreement it was specifically mentioned that Formosa was to be returned after the war to the Chinese republic. The Japanese knew that quite well and after V-J day they left Formosa and went back to their homeland.
The president of the Chinese republic, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, appointed General Chen Yi, a personal friend, as governor of Formosa. He was received with great acclaim when he arrived there. For many years Formosa had been noted for its exports of sugar and fish. This fish was canned there with Formosan labour and exported.
69262-12i
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie We used to hear complaints on the Pacific coast about cheap fish, and much of it came from Formosa. Pineapples were also exported in considerable volume. The Japanese had industrialized the country in a large way.
Then the Japanese left and General Chen Yi took over and he brought along a few of his war lords. I know this is not very palatable, but the facts of the situation should be outlined. The first thing General Chen Yi did was to expropriate the best land on the island, and there was considerable fertile land there. He exported the sugar and other commodities that were produced and within six months the people were literally starving. They asked General Chen Yi to give them something to eat. After all, while the Japanese had exploited them they had given them something to eat. The general would not do that. He sent over to the mainland and two battalions of storm troopers were sent over by the nationalist government and they literally massacred from 12,000 to 15,000 of the inhabitants because they had protested over not getting enough to eat.
Eventually General Chen Yi was recalled and he went back to the mainland to fight with the nationalist troops. When the nationalist government was driven off the mainland it was said that the general had been collaborating with the communists and the report is that eventually he was shot. But the damage had been done. The people there were quite antagonistic and many of those who were sent down there under the rehabilitation program came back and reported that the feeling in Formosa was quite anti-nationalist. Many of the people there were not ready to back the nationalist government in China.
It is said that if we had supplied that government with munitions and arms and equipment this situation would never have, developed. That statement has been made in Time and Life magazines many times. As a matter of fact if you look up Newsweek of last September you will see a fairly good account of the mistakes that were made in connection with Formosa. I would not say that the nationalist government was not backed. I think we backed it in a rather substantial way. So far as the UNRRA program is concerned we sent over there over $600 million of supplies that had a high commercial market value. Those supplies were distributed for the purpose of rehabilitating the people and to try to restore them to a normal way of living. Those supplies were under the control of the nationalist government. After all, the CNRRA organization was appointed by the nationalist government and

The Address-Mr. MacKenzie they had control of the distribution, and allocation of supplies. We supported the government there in their efforts to help the people. As a matter of fact, the UNRRA program was designed as a young Marshall plan. It was a preliminary plan to assist the people to get back to a normal way of living.
In September 1947, big headlines appeared in English and Chinese newspapers to the effect that Canada had advanced a credit of $60 million to China. It was further said that the credit was to be utilized in the purchase. of Canadian Mosquito bombers. Of course that was propaganda. When I came home I looked up the records. I found that Canada had provided a loan of $60 million to China but that not too much of it had been expended on war munitions and supplies. I believe the amount so spent was in the neighbourhood of $17 million, and they did not take all the loan but only something over $50 million. A very small portion of the loan has been repaid.
The United States provided them with large amounts of supplies. When I came home I reported to Washington and talked to officials in the department of the secretary of state. We discussed the situation in China and they asked me where the communists got their supplies. I said, "You have sent them plenty of supplies; up to date you have sent them over $2 billion of supplies." While they would not admit that, they said they had sent a very large amount of supplies. In any case, they sent them large quantities of supplies of all kinds. I claim that the nationalist government could not possibly be reinstated unless, you took over the whole organization. The people of Canada, the United States and the other nations were not prepared to do that. There is an old adage that if you enter into a family quarrel the first thing you do is unite the family. That could not easily happen in a country as large as China.
Therefore I claim that they had every possible support and they were not able to make a success. I must conclude-and I think Canada, the United States and the western powers must also agree-in that we backed a feudalistic, corrupt, depressed, dying regime in China that could not possibly be reinstated no matter what one did. I do not think it is within the realm of possibility to do so.
I was quite disturbed at a newsreel I saw when I went to the theatre the other night. General MacArthur was being received in Formosa by Chiang Kai-shek and Madame Chiang. Apparently they were seeking a lot of publicity. They showed the arms and the forces there. My view is-and I think this
iMr. MacKenzie.]
is one of the great dangers

that if you attempt to reinstate that regime it would be disastrous.
Another point that I want to emphasize at this time is the Cairo declaration. Formosa was to be given back to the Chinese republic. It was a part of the former Chinese regime and was to be restored. You find a situation today that is rather confusing. Great Britain recognizes the present communist government of China which controls practically the whole of China with the exception of the island of Formosa. According to the declaration that was signed by Mr. Churchill as one of the signatories, Formosa should be restored to the Chinese republic. You have the United States virtually recognizing the Chiang regime. I say that if the communists attack Formosa you will have a most complicated situation that could easily lead to a world war. I want to bring that point home. I am quite convinced that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is well aware of the situation and much more conversant with it than I am. Nevertheless the matter gave me some concern, and while I hesitate to do so, knowing the situation and something about the problems over there, I could not be fair with myself if I did not say something about the matter in this House of Commons.
Let me cite the case of Manchuria. It has been claimed in the house and elsewhere many times that the communists do not make mistakes, that the communists have planned all these moves, that they know what they are going to do and where they are going. I am not so sure about that. One of the big mistakes they made was in stripping Manchuria. In 1945 they stripped Manchurian industrial plants in a large way and took the machinery to Russia. Some of it is still rusting in Russian fields because they had no plan to utilize it. By doing that they have antagonized a great portion of the Chinese people and have created a very bad feeling among a lot of them.
I wonder how many people in this house know anything about hunger. I question if there is anyone in the house who knows anything about hunger, privation, want and misery. I do not think there are very many people in Canada who do. Can you understand why these people have been lured into the Russian camp? It is quite easy to understand. People who have been there tell me that after the first agony of hunger is over you are in such a depressed state that you do not care what happens to you. You have no heart to do anything. Therefore in the main these people had nothing to lose. The communists came and said that they were going to give them a better standard of living,

something better than they then had, and it is quite easy to understand why the people accepted the communist promises. However, the communist plans and promises have not materialized and the people are quite dissatisfied today. Now they are looking for something that will help to build them up and give them the high standard of living which they do not now have. The people are not happy.
Whether or not you agree with me, let me say that the people of China are deeply religious. They are pagan, if you like, but they are religious, and they will not accept the communist theory as it is proposed there and perpetuated in other places. I know that I have not much support in the house for what I am about to say, but that does not matter. I think we made the greatest mistake in our life when we left them to their own resources. We buried our heads in the sand and said we would have no contact with them at all. We played right into the open arms of Russia. In my opinion there is no question about that. Therefore I think that one of the great dangers would lie in the rehabilitation of the corrupt and discredited nationalist regime. That must not take place again. There is also the danger of all-out war with China. I think it can be avoided. I think it would be a most disastrous event and one of the great blunders of diplomacy if we provoked and developed such a situation that we had a complete outbreak of war with China. The picture is not bright, but it certainly is not hopeless. My time is about up, but I want to say that there is no one in this house who is more aware of the dangerous threat of communism than I am. We must face the situation courageously. We are up against a ruthless enemy who will stop at nothing. I am, and I am sure you are, confident of the outcome. It is my opinion that we are today facing the most serious and critical time in our history. But guns alone will not cure communism. We must bring relief and rehabilitation, as well as be prepared to the hilt to fight the most ruthless enemy we have ever known.
The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) closed his speech with a little poem. He probably established a precedent that could become a bore. I believe this poem is one that was repeated on one occasion by the former prime minister. It is as follows: Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold.
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold;
And to the presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?" The vision raised its head, And, with a look made of all sweet accord,
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so," Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee, then, Write me as one that loves his fellow-men."
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night It came again, with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed;
And, lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, foreign policy and that which cannot be divorced from it, namely defence policy, are usually evolved on the basis of calculated risks. That is easy to understand, for one cannot possibly hope to take care of every contingency which may arise. What we therefore hope for is that the calculations are based on the best and soundest judgment.
I share the fear of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) that the United States has made an error in policy with regard to Formosa; and it is right and proper that we should consider that policy here because we are going to be directly affected by it either as a close neighbour and a good friend of the United States or else, of course, at the security council.
I have consistently taken the position that our policy with regard to China should be directed toward keeping that country neutral in either a hot or a cold war. I do not deceive myself by thinking that we can secure an ally in China. But I am not yet convinced in my own mind that China is thoroughly in the grip of the Soviet union. I find it hard to believe that the Chinese people will become a willing tool of the Kremlin. After all, they are members of an ancient and a proud nation. I may be wrong, but I do not think that they will be content to suffer under the yoke of soviet domination. If the policy of the western world then should be directed to keeping China neutral as far as possible, I say again that an error has been made in American policy towards Formosa; for that policy seems to have been tailored with the idea of antagonizing China; and we may be involved.
I think that the United States took one of the biggest gambles in all its history last June when it decided to try to isolate Formosa from the civil war which had been raging on the mainland. Unfortunately, there may have been an element of bluff about this gamble because I doubt very much whether, if the

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
Peiping regime decided to take Formosa by force, the United States has adequate vessels or troops on hand to repel an invasion. In international affairs it is always a mistake to place yourself in a position where your bluff may be called.	.
There is a fear afflicting not only Asians but also many in the western world that the United States, while it is ostensibly defending Formosa, is in reality defending Chiang Kai-shek. There is a fear-and there is a basis for that fear-that there may have been another orientation of policy on the part of the United States. The reason for that we need not enter into here. I think most of us are familiar with the stresses and strains of American politics. We are concerned, however, with the net result.
I was discouraged by the visit of General MacArthur at the beginning of August to Chiang Kai-shek. I think that visit merely added fuel to the flames of fear which already obsessed many Asians about the policies of the west towards them. Not only was the visit misguided but what was even worse-and I do not know whether this was done with or without the consent of the state department-not long afterwards not only was advice given to Chiang Kai-shek from General MacArthur's headquarters but also supplies were sent. We had the extraordinary situation, a few days ago, of General MacArthur-whom I regard at this moment not so much as an American general but as a general in command of the United Nations forces, which include Canadian forces, so he has some responsibility to Canada-trying to make policy in the Far East.
That was a blunder which, of course, the soviets are going to capitalize on to the very limit. The pity is that American blunders in the Far East have been so much worse than their crimes. They have that advantage over the Soviet union. The Soviet's crimes against humanity have been unforgivable. But there is shared by many responsible observers the fear that the United States once again is becoming entangled in Chiang's ambitions; and if that is going to happen, then obviously the United States is going to play the role which the Soviet union desires to see it play.
It is one of the aims of the Soviet union to isolate, as far as possible, the United States from its friends and allies. I am certain that it will not succeed in doing so. Nevertheless, the policy with regard to Formosa has perhaps estranged to some extent the people of India and has certainly made the position of the United Kingdom more than uncomfortable. The United Kingdom has recognized the Peiping regime, and now it
tMr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]

sees its best friend and benefactor apparently aiding those who are opposed to it. The predicament then in which the British government finds itself is easily recognized. But we know what the policy of the Soviet union is. We know what they would like to have us do, and I do not think any of us is going to be lured into such a position that we shall desert the United States. It is only right, however, that the United States should know clearly and unequivocably what our position is.
Discussing the possibility of a red attack on Formosa, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent this afternoon said that it would complicate matters. That was a notable understatement. I can imagine few contingencies more dreadful, because I think that today the potentialities of the Formosan situation are much more dangerous than those in Korea. I believe that Russia would ask for nothing more than that the United States should be embroiled in a war with the Chinese government. That would suit Russian policy admirably, and unfortunately the Americans seem to be playing the role according to Russian desires.
I do not share the fear of many that Russia is at this moment prepared on its own part for active aggression. Russia does not need to indulge in aggression so long as it can get others to do its fighting for it, as in Korea, as might conceivably happen in a moment of tragedy if war were to result between the United States and China, as might happen if non-government members in Indo-China staged a revolt, as might happen today in Greece if the Bulgars carried even further their sporadic raids across into Grecian territory, as might happen today in Germany where in the east there are many Germans only too willing to play the part of Russian puppets and perhaps attack the west. In that case, if we were to defend all those danger spots by going to war, we should find ourselves so weakened and so enfeebled, while the Soviet union itself remained strong and powerful, that the fate of the western world would be precarious. For that reason, if for none other, I welcome the fact that Formosa is going to be presented to the United Nations, and that the United Nations will decide as to what shall be done there.
I agree completely with my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when he suggests that one of the best things which could be done would be the ejection from Formosa of Chiang Kai-shek. I need not dwell at all upon the demerits of that late ruler of China. The hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) did an admirable job on them this afternoon; but I am certain

that much tension would be relieved if Chiang Kai-shek could be removed from Formosa, and certainly tension will be relieved when the matter comes before the United Nations, and when the United States accepts the advice of that body.
The situation as regards Korea of course is obviously different. There can be no question in the minds of any of us as to the cor-rectitude and the rectitude of the action which the United Nations is now taking. Here was a clear case of aggression, and it was one which if collective security had reality had to be stopped. The United Nations working together have set up police action to stop it; and while today the news seems a little brighter than it has in the past few weeks, nevertheless I do not think we should take too much comfort from it, for I suspect that the operations there will last many long and weary months.
As has been pointed out by other speakers, we made blunders in Korea, blunders which have cost us dearly, as we have made blunders in other Asian areas. We supported the forces of reaction. We supported exiles whom their countrymen had almost forgotten. We supported collaborators of the Japanese; and although our motives were good, the political effect was serious.
The Japanese owned altogether some 80 per cent of the wealth of the island when they were thrown out. In North Korea, the industrial area of the country, the Russians took over the plants, took over the factories, organized and unionized the workers, and gave them the hope that so many Asians today are looking for, namely, the hope of a better living. In South Korea, unfortunately, those who eventually got control of the land were the very collaborators who had worked with the Japanese; and as history shows, those who possess the wealth of a nation very rapidly become its rulers. In that case, then, we need not be unduly surprised if the troops of South Korea have not shown the same enthusiasm as have the troops of North Korea in recent battles.
We know what we are fighting against. There can be no question, no shadow of a doubt about that. We are fighting against soviet aggression, soviet imperialism. What is perhaps more important, I wonder how many people know what we are fighting for. Few of the Asian people know what the western world is fighting for in Korea. They have been given the Russian side of the story. Mr. Malik, while he was chairman of the security council, directed all his speeches to Asia. He did a far better job on propaganda in many ways than we did.
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
I refer to the remarks of my leader the other day when he told us that he had listened to those broadcasts over the Mutual Broadcasting Company between alleged experts on this side of the water and reporters in Japan. I heard two of them; and on each occasion Mr. J. B. McGeachy from Toronto was the Canadian member of the board. Each time he asked this question: "What are we fighting for?" and each time he got no answer, or something which was completely and utterly unsatisfactory. I assume that we are not fighting of necessity to put Syngman Rhee back where he was. I assume we are not fighting to put the collaborators back in the position of power which they occupied. I hope we are fighting for the freedom of the people of Korea and, if possible, for a united Korea, for the chance of Koreans to live their lives and to decide on their own form of government, and to live in freedom and with some security. I think that is the aim of the United Nations. If it is the aim it has not yet been sufficiently publicized throughout Asia.
In his speech the other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearsoij) used these profoundly true words, as reported at page 90 of Hansard of August 31:
Military strength is absolutely necessary, of course, but it must be supplemented by imaginative economic and social programs if the march of communism as a social and economic doctrine is to be halted.
That is true. This is not the first time he has uttered such words, nor is it the first time that I have, but unfortunately while he states that is the policy of his government, I have yet to find out what the government proposes to do or what it has done to implement that lofty aspiration. I heard only a faint echo of the applause which he received and I see only his words in Hansard. The time has come to put into practice these things which he says should be done.
A few days ago the British Labour party published a document whicjh eventually may become official, in the sense that it may become British governmental policy. It was a world plan for mutual aid, with the intention of attacking poverty throughout the world no matter where it exists. The hope is that all free peoples will contribute to this plan in an attempt to raise the standards of living all over the globe, and by this most practical and concrete way combat communism. I still believe that bread and butter are more inimical to communism than guns ever will be. The purpose of this fund, plan, call it what you like, is to take the place of Marshall aid when it stops. Its purpose is to help those in the underprivileged areas to have roads built, bridges built, factories
176	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr, A. Stewart built and equipped and staffed with competent workmen; to irrigate lands so that crops may be raised, so that in turn the people might be fed. There is something in which I think we could play a noble and magnanimous part.
I refer again to a remark, a suggestion given by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to this house last year; and it is one which perhaps might save us yet from a sea of troubles. It was to this effect: that the Canadian government should enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom government to find out what that country needed from us in the way of foodstuffs and vital raw materials. Payments would be made in sterling. The first effect would be to guarantee our primary producers on the prairies and on the farms everywhere, in the logging camps and our fisherman also that there would be some market for the commodities which they produce or were able to sell on that market. Secondly, it would conserve the United Kingdom dollars which they still need. Thirdly, the sterling balances in London would not be frozen there as a debt of the United Kingdom to Canada, but they would be converted in turn into aid given to those underprivileged areas.
If we were to follow a policy such as that we would, I feel, kill several birds with one stone, and still carry out the policy which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) desires to see carried out, as I am sure do many of the rest of us. It will be argued, and has been argued, although not with much vehemence now, that our program is costly. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) told us the other night that taxes would have to be raised in Canada, and I think none of us have any illusions about the matter. Taxes will have to be raised, and taxes must be raised. But they have got to be raised with justice and equity.
The situation today among vast numbers of the working people is that the unseen tax of inflation is taking from them so much that if they are otherwise taxed directly by the government they will fall substantially below the standard of living which we should like to see in Canada. The government openly and willingly, under its own policy, has decided that this inflationary spiral shall be permitted to continue. Today, I believe, the index has reached almost 170. Inflation is taxing the incomes of the primary producers and the workers in this country without mercy.
If taxation is to be raised, as it must be, then I hope it wiP not be indirect taxation.
I hope it will be direct, so that we shall know what we are paying. I hope, too, that it


will not be levied upon the poorer-paid members of our community. But if, perchance, owing to the nature of the financial provisions which we must make, they must accept some share of it, then I think it would be wrong to tax them in the sense of their paying income tax. If they have to pay anything, then it should be done as it was done during the war, by way of compulsory savings. It would not be right to penalize the poorer members of our society any more than they are already being penalized.
There will be of course additional taxation on corporations. This year is going to be probably the best year, so far as profits are concerned, that Canadian corporations have ever experienced. They may even, I hope, be asked to pay excess profits taxes-and I hope they will be heavy. I say that because I see no reason why corporations, or others for that matter, should be allowed to make excess profits out of a national emergency. If there is an excess profits tax it will have to be based upon a certain period. That period might be 1940-1944, because I do not think corporations should be allowed to make any more out of this emergency that they did during the war.
I have spoken about inflation; and there are dangers associated with inflation, especially when we are trying to bring all our people together in an attempt to achieve a national aim. One of the dangers of the inflationary spiral is the renewed set of demands on the part of organized labour for higher wages. Who is there who will blame labour when they see how prices are going up all around them?
It is not unnatural for the Canadian worker to compare his income with that of his coworker on the other side of the boundary line, in the United States. I have been in the United States several times in the last two or three years. Each time I go I take the opportunity to go into the stores and the groceterias to see how prices are over there. By and large, with certain exceptions, the prices which the American workingman has to pay for those commodities he requires to live are lower than the prices his Canadian counterpart has to pay. Yet there is quite a disparity in the wages earned by the two groups.
In this connection I turn to the figures for 1946, the year following the war, and the latest figures I have been able to obtain for 1950. In the United States between 1946 and 1950 there were certain significant price movements. Wholesale prices over there increased by some 26 per cent in that time, whereas wholesale prices in Canada during the same period increased by 47 per cent. As one would expect, extending from the

increased wholesale prices, the cost of living was affected. However in the United States it was up only to the extent of 20 per cent while in Canada it was up by 33 per cent. Let it be remembered that in Canada wages have not kept pace with this increase.
The real wages of American workers increased in that period by some $2.46 a week whereas the real wages of Canadian workers have increased by only about $1.25 per week. It may be argued that in those four years we saw the greatest increase in wages that Canadian workers had yet received. That is true; I will not deny it. The average hourly earnings of a man in 1946 were about 70 cents whereas in 1950 they were $1.02, or an increase of roughly 45 per cent.
But when we say that the income of the wage earner increased we must remember that unearned income also increased. The profits of the 450 corporations mentioned in the Bank of Canada statistical summary increased altogether by some 66 per cent. If there is going to be justice in this country in a common effort, then the taxation of corporations must be such as to let the average individual feel that unearned income is not being given preference over earned income.
Along with that it is in the opinion of our party essential that price controls be reinstituted, not in the sense of the rigid controls mentioned today by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham), but in a much more selective sense than was necessary in the early days of the war. Not only should price controls be instituted for, let us say, the necessary commodities of life, but subsidies might also have to be granted.
The argument against that is that we lack the constitutional power. The question arises: Are we or are we not at war? To the legal mind it may be argued that our action in Korea is merely compliance with United Nations obligations on the part of Canada, and that technically we are not at war. However, I feel that the brigade going to Korea may see neither the difference nor the distinction in the legal technicality. That is a point which perhaps the courts might consider.
But if we are not at war, then according to the motions which the government is going to present to us, we are assuredly in a state of apprehended war, and certain action will have to be taken for the peace, order and good government of the country. I find it difficult to believe that any court in Canada or outside Canada would reject legislation if, in the face of apprehended war, this parliament decided that it would be advisable to reintroduce price controls and subsidies. I do not think
The Address-Mr. Poulin the constitutional question is a barrier today. I believe the real barrier is a lack of desire on the part of the government to institute these very necessary controls. This is all most regrettable because the people of Canada must have some protection, and they can have that protection only from their own democratically-elected government.
Whether or not we are concerned about the costs of an apprehended war, no matter how real the apprehension may be, we must not permit those costs to blind us to the fact that there is a great group of people in this country, our old age pensioners, our senior citizens, who still lack security-and security is the right of every person in a democracy.
I hope the coming appropriations will not be used as an excuse to prevent the removal of the means test, and some amelioration in the conditions of the older people in this country. The responsibility is that of the government. They will take the odium or they will take the praise. But I know that their share will be odium if they do not give protection to the people of Canada from an unseemly rise in the cost of living, by the institution of controls and the provision of necessary subsidies.
(Translation):


Raoul Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in offering to the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne the usual congratulations. I do so not merely because it is the custom but because I am convinced they have ably performed their difficult duty and shown they well deserve the confidence placed in them.
Canada is now facing a complex situation. Important and tragic events are happening thousands of miles from our coasts, for which we are in no way to blame. War rages all over Korea, a small country in Asia. The physical cause of this war lies in the fact that at the end of the world war, two great powers, both our allies, both interested in that part of the world, Russia and the United States, arbitrarily divided the territory of that country in two parts. This division, awkward, artificial and perhaps somewhat selfish, has resulted in the invasion of one section of the country by the other.
From the humane point of view, the invasion of South Korea by the people of North Korea might be regarded simply as a sort of brutal reuniting of two members of the same family

The Address-Mr. Poulin whose guardians had felt able to keep asunder in order to exploit them more thoroughly.
It would then be a civil war. In that case, why should we take sides in a family squabble? Should we not let the estranged brothers settle their differences in their own way? When civil war was raging in China, Canada did not meddle, nor did the United States.
But apart from the physical cause, political reasons over which Canada had no control contributed to bring about this war. Clever and well managed propaganda does much to show-and perhaps rightly-that behind the North Korean aggressor lurks the Russian bear, that it is a war of communist ideology against democracy and freedom. This is just short of saying that not only is Canada's territorial integrity endangered, but that the liberty, religion and way of life of her people are at stake. And we have to vote millions of dollars, take up arms, dispatch ships, airplanes, men, a special brigade in order to stem the advance of our communist enemy and help our allies who, in turn, will help us.
I am all for helping our allies, or avoiding isolationism. I agree too that we should fight communism. But how are we to go about it?
To take up arms against communism in a far-away land may be a fine thing; but it would have been much wiser to squelch it at home in the first place, to stifle its propaganda at the start to prevent its peddlers from travelling here, there and everywhere, going abroad for instructions in communist countries, and especially to deny them the right to stand as candidates for public office. It has been stated lately in this house that there are very few communists in Canada. However, in the last election, the communist candidate in Cartier received over 4,000 votes. That is why I should have been pleased if, during the last session, all communist activity in this country had been banned by an act of parliament.
Let us seek to bring happiness to all peoples; strive to give the destitute at least the bread they need to stay their hunger and brighten their outlook; offer the various nations the means to develop in accordance with the normal bent of their national, religious and cultural aspirations; help peoples to establish their economy in such a way that they will not always be the menials of a group of countries who enslave and exploit them, thus fostering feelings of hate and resentment. There we have a very

incomplete and imperfect account of means less costly and less inhuman than war and which, however, remain the first and best weapon against communism. By all means, let us help our allies in the Korean war. Still we might do well to examine the sequence of events at the time of the aggression. It might enable us to foresee at the same time what may happen in the future and, as a result, would help us to determine the attitude we will have to take now.
The aggression began on June 25. On June 27 the President of the United States ordered the protection and support of the South Korean government troops. It was only several hours later the same day that the security council recommended to the members of the United Nations to bring assistance to Korea. It is therefore undeniable that the United States took sides in this issue before receiving the order to do so from the security council. Anyone doubting this statement need only refer to page 268 of the July 1950 number of External Affairs to see that as the hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) admitted himself:
The United States government took this position on its own authority.
Can this not lead to serious misuse of the organization whose might and influence are exercised with such power among the United Nations?
It might be said that this first premature decision was timely, but who knows, should it happen again, that the same will hold true. In other instances the interests of the United States might conflict with those of the United Nations. What would happen then if a premature action were again taken? We would find ourselves in a dilemma and, because of the precedent, we would be compelled to carry on against our will, against common sense and against our own interests.
Today it is Korea, tomorrow it will be Formosa. What about Formosa, the defence of which is being prepared? There an attempt will also be made to save the wreckage of nationalist China in her last positions, those concerned having forgotten to defend her on the continent. Did not the commander-in-chief of the United Nations forces just state that an attack against Formosa would start a general war?
After Formosa, perhaps the Philippines, then Indo-China and so on. Nevertheless we shall go ahead because, as we are told, we are bound by our signature.

Instead of rushing headlong into the fight could not Canada have tried something else in order to help her allies? Could she not have brought pressure to bear by means of peaceful tactics?
It seems that nations must have a police force. Since when has the revolver been the only weapon used by the police in apprehending bandits, and would it be true that they must of necessity kill those over whom they want the upper hand? Is blowing on a fire the only way to put it out?
That is not what was indicated recently under other circumstances. In a book entitled "Canada and the United Nations", published by the external affairs department, one reads, on page 18, a number of general remarks from which the following extract is taken:
. . . the security council was the instrument in 1949 through which the international community dealt with three dangerously inflammable problems- Indonesia, Kashmir and Palestine. In most difficult circumstances, the security council managed in all three areas to bring an end to fighting when it occurred.
The most effective action taken by the security council related to Indonesia. When the year began, a major military engagement had been undertaken in Indonesia and it seemed that nothing but a trial of strength lasting over an indefinite period would bring a solution to the political problems of that part of the world. Before the end of the year, however, an agreement had been reached between the people of the Netherlands and the people of Indonesia which gives every evidence of providing a permanent basis of settlement.
Should Canada have taken such a stand it would have been no cause for surprise, since it would have been strictly in keeping with her obligations. I notice at page 241 in appendix 7 of the book from which I have just quoted a resolution carried by the general assembly regarding the essentials of peace. Canada voted in favour of the said resolution introduced on December 1, 1949. I now quote paragraph 11:
The general assembly calls upon every nation to settle international disputes by peaceful means.
Do you not think that that would be an excellent way of helping our allies? Some answer that it would have been of no avail; perhaps, but who can say? And further:
-in connection with three dangerously inflammable problems . . . where it seemed that nothing but a trial of strength would bring a solution-
Are we sure that what succeeded so well in 1949 would have been less efficient in 1950?
Again, some may say that it would not have been sufficient. Perhaps; but Canada can do more and I am in favour. I am not against
The Address-Mr. Poulin voting reasonable appropriations for defence, I am not opposed to voluntary enlistment, even on a large scale, as long as those Canadian soldiers remain in Canada. It would be very costly to send an expeditionary force to a foreign country mainly on account of the distances involved. Canada's financial resources are far from being inexhaustible. The $15 billion spent during the last war have had bitter consequences, as we are all aware. It is also well known that people in the low income groups feel more than others the brunt of economic depressions, which inevitably result from excessive spending.
Freedom is said to be priceless. Just the same it would be paying too high a price for it if we have to throw ourselves into an economic mess so great that it would be impossible for us to enjoy it. What would you say if the head of a family, in order to get his family out of the slum conditions in which they lived, would use all his savings to buy a sumptuous abode into which it would be impossible for him to move without depriving his family of essential things? He would certainly have paid too high a price for that liberty, because his family would not be in a position to enjoy it.
Our military defence must be organized at home. We have a vast underpopulated country with extended and widely separated coast lines; it is dotted with huge wastelands, including our large barren northland which an enemy could not easily reach, but which also could not be easily defended. Spanned by extensive waterways, of great importance to our economy and, in part, within easy reach of enemy submarines, Canada has some densely populated cities of strategic importance on account of their industries. These might have to be declared open cities, because they could not be adequately protected.
Our country, as I have just described it, must concentrate all its productive powers. I declare without fear that the skill of our trained soldiers, the strength of all our young men, the experience of all our grown men, the abilities of all our young women, the development of all our resources, all that is not too much to maintain in Canada a proper standard of living. Canada needs all those skills to ensure our own protection and to put us in the convenient and effective position of "armed and benevolent neutrality" which has so well served the cause of our common allies when practised by a powerful country which today does not seem to want to recog-

The Address-Mr. Poulin nize its timeliness and efficiency, and which is therefore turning its back so lightly on her past.
Would not the defence of our country be the surest and most practical way of helping our allies and neighbours, the United States?
It is planned to send a special brigade of Canadian soldiers to Korea or anywhere the government sees fit. I feel impelled to stand strictly against that for reasons already stated. We need those skills for the defence of our country, and it would be too burdensome for the Canadian people. Another reason, and not the least, is that this levy of volunteers would sooner or later bring conscription for service beyond our shores.
I believe the government have the best of intentions. I believe they are sincere when they speak of volunteers, and that they have no wish at this time to conscript our young men for service outside this country. However, when all the volunteers shall have been used up who will replace the dead, the wounded or the missing, especially if-as we may foresee-events such as are happening in Korea occur in several places in the world?
The lessons of the past, those learned by the Conservative government in the first world war, those learned by the Liberal government during the last war, prove that it is easy to decide how to start a war but that one is powerless to decide how to end it. Promises are forgotten, walls are broken down and the people have to pay for unconsidered and hasty decisions taken in the first enthusiasm and soon forgotten or denied in the heat of war.
The people of Quebec have stated in 1942 their attitude towards conscription. Even though they have not had any opportunity to further state their position since, we may rightfully assume they have not changed their minds.
Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to labour the point. I have expressed an opinion, at least I very humbly endeavoured to justify views which, I am aware, are not shared by the majority of members but are shared and upheld, I believe, by the majority of electors of the constituency of Beauce who have asked me to represent them in the parliament of their country.
I have dealt with a timely, thorny and ticklish matter. I have tried to speak in a calm, objective manner. I did not seek, and I was careful not to stir up any passions or drag in old grudges. When my constituents


read my humble speech, if they do so, they will find that I have spoken in this house, on this difficult occasion, with respect, dignity and frankness typical of the fair population of Beauce.
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, we have been called here to this special session to deal with two matters of great importance, the railway strike and the situation in Korea which, of course, involves considerations going far beyond Korea. The first of these matters has been dealt with, and we are in the midst of debating the second. I suppose it is not straining ordinary language to say that this is a matter of the greatest gravity to us. Perhaps if one uses the words "a matter of life and death" one is not exaggerating. Yet I believe anyone who was in this chamber this afternoon at three o'clock, and saw half the members absent, would have thought it was a strange commentary on the seriousness of the situation. I am not blaming those who are away. Perhaps they have the feeling that some of the rest of us have, that we are in the hands of a government which will pay no attention to the reasonableness of requests, and which will turn down a request proffered by all those who are free to express their views. What I really complain about is that, without the semblance of what anyone would call a reason of any kind-the only reason being the will of the majority and we know too well what that means - a request is turned down. The majority were not prepared to express their views, but were prepared to be absent today. On that, I have nothing more to say.
I come now to consider the grave problems which face us. We have the Korean situation and all that flows from it. We cannot, of course, discuss it without having in the forefront of our minds the question of Russia. But I suggest it would be desirable, even though we have Russia on our minds, that we do not allow ourselves to have Russia on the brain. Some wise remarks were made this afternoon by the member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) when he pointed to what I like to remind myself of, and what Mr. Churchill has often pointed out, that the Russians are not always so clever as we are inclined to think. They have their own difficulties. It is for that reason I deprecate our regarding war as already here. I deprecate statements such as the one made in this house last night that we are ninety per cent sure we shall have a war soon. Nobody knows that. I believe

the sensible words are the words which Churchill uses. I heard him in a broadcast just a week ago tonight in London. He says that we are in great danger, and although he did not add these words from Henry V then, I have no doubt he had them in mind:
Gloucester, 'tis true we are in great danger;
The greater therefore should our courage be.
What Churchill says is the practical thing. He says we may have, because of the atom bomb, some years of time; let us use them well in preparation. I suggest that that is the task of those of us who are here.
The member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) well said last night that we are a kind of liaison with the citizens of Canada. I think we have a particular duty to see whether we can rise to the heights of that great challenge at a time when certainly the danger is great. I think we should also remind ourselves that in preparing for war we should, in spite of the difficulties and disappointments, try to reach out for every prospect of peace. We must remember that even in the most absolute monarchy the consent of the governed is not wholly an illusion. After all, from time to time we read of sabotage and absenteeism. After all, what are these purges for? They do not have purges because everything in the garden is lovely. They have purges because they still have people who are regarded as disloyal. I suggest that, without relaxing every effort for military preparation, we should not omit these other things which may have an importance that is often hard to believe.
I should like to consider the military situation briefly. Last night the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) dealt with the Pacific situation. I have no further comment to make on that. It seems to me lamentable in many ways. With the tide of battle swaying uneasily and perhaps uncertainly as it is in Korea today I doubt if we feel happy that there is not a single one of our men on the ground there-I mean literally on the ground, apart from the air or the sea-to help those who are so hard-pressed. What I want to do this evening is to spend a few minutes in dealing with the Atlantic scene and western Europe.
I need not take time to remind you of the vast importance of western Europe to us economically, because that is our traditional market. If anything happened to western Europe, I mean anything irreparable, if their economy were destroyed, it could be most serious for us. "Serious" is hardly a strong enough word to use. I need not remind you either of the strategical situation. On that I shall endeavour to say a word or two later.
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
This summer I had the privilege of spending two days at Strasbourg during the meetings of the council of Europe. Briefly the council of Europe is a sort of parliament of Europe. It has no powers except powers of recommendation. It is made up of representatives, certainly in the case of England and I think in the other member countries, from all parties of the various parliaments of the countries represented on the council. It was interesting to be there, and to hear the discussions. The impression one brought away was of a people who were harried, oppressed and uncertain, who were in need of all the help that could be given. I was there when the Schuman plan was adopted; and one felt that while to us the Schuman plan, suggests merely the rationalization of iron and steel, to them in some strange way it seems to be a kind of new evangel, a kind of new gospel, which is going to enable them to heal, they hope, the age-old wounds of Europe and to come into a better day.
In that connection I should like to quote briefly, because it states what I have been saying and does so extremely well, from an article in Lloyd's Bank Review of July, written by an able English economist who, besides being skilled in economics, has a good deal of experience in government. He is reviewing this western European situation and he has this to say. This is quite a brief quotation but I think it goes to the very point at issue, and he sums up the situation which I think we ourselves have to face and which comes very close to us. No one who has been wafted across the Atlantic in one of the planes of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in a few hours can for one moment feel that Europe is any longer at a distance from us. We realize only too well what Wendell Willkie meant when he wrote "One World". Robbins, in this Lloyd's Bank Review, says this:
For the plain fact is that in the present or any probable future state of military preparation, the allies of western Europe, including Great Britain, are not likely to be able, unaided, to resist an invasion from the east-even if they were all to fight. It is not the military power of this group which, so far, has prevented the men in the Kremlin from letting their armies march ... it is the fear of the resources and power of the world beyond western Europe, which would inevitably be drawn into such a conflict.
And later he says:
It is, indeed, the central contention of this paper that, on the basis of the Atlantic pact, there has been achieved a grouping which, if developed and suitably consolidated, may yet arrest the tide of advancing barbarism and be a safeguard of peace and prosperity for as many years to come as it is sensible to think about. It is a grouping which can be sufficiently strong: it includes the main industrial power of two continents. It is a grouping within which we ourselves can wholeheartedly co-operate without fear of destroying existing connections . . .
182	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
It is a grouping, moreover, which corresponds to the main area of our spiritual solidarity: the United States, equally with Europe and the commonwealth, is now the repository of the great tradition.
Having said that, I should like to read a sentence or two from a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in June last. That follows directly on what I have just read you from Lloyd's Bank Review. Speaking of the North Atlantic pact, as reported at page 3189 of Hansard of June 5, 1950, he says this:
North Atlantic strategy cannot mean, and our agreement does not imply, a strategy of liberation after destruction and occupation. There could be no hope for Europe in that strategy because the next time there may well be nothing to liberate.
I might add to that that it fits in exactly with what I heard said in the very short time I was in France, namely that they were tired of being liberated. They are not looking for that again. If we wish them to preserve themselves, it can only be done by the United States, the United Kingdom and whoever else is ready being able to help them in time. And "in time" of course does not mean after they have been overrun.
This house has approved the Atlantic pact. As a matter of fact, we have not only approved it but we have patted ourselves a good deal on the back because we had a great deal to do, so we say-and I have no reason to doubt it-with the preparation of it. Yet I think we should do some searching of heart to see what it has really amounted to. I think it was Mr. Reynaud a former premier of France, who dismissed it rather summarily by saying that it was just talk, talk, talk. I suggest that we should look searchingly and ask to be informed fully as to just what is involved in it, as to just what the aims are, and just how far we have got in giving effect to the far-reaching aims.
In June last, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs made his speech, I think we all approved of what he said. The objectives were approved by us. But I think some of us had the feeling at that time-certainly I myself had it-that there was not quite enough sense of urgency. It was either then or in his speech the other day, I am not quite sure which, that he said that of course these are plans that it will take time to work out. Indeed I felt, in listening to him, that at the rate we are going it might take many months or even some years before the thing became very practical.
My hope is, and it is the sole purpose of my remarks tonight, to try to put it to the government that we in this parliament should be put in a position to know what the situation is before we are asked to vote money; that we


should not merely have a few general statements made which we are asked to accept, like a lot of good little boys, but that we should have an opportunity to know what the situation really is.
It is true that we had from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) a speech which contained, first of all, a long list of things that we had or were going to have or were going to give to somebody else. It sounded to me a little bit like a list of quartermaster's stores, and I think it was really not much more use to anyone who was trying to reach a conclusion in his own mind than a list of quartermaster's stores would be, as a means of carrying out an action without other information. As I say, we are here to reach a conclusion after full information.
I should just like to remind you again what the situation is. I quoted this well-informed Britisher writing in Lloyd's Bank Review, setting out the vast importance in his mind, a well-informed mind, of the Atlantic pact. Then I read you words, which I suggest fully endorse that statement, given us last June by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That brings me to a point that I wish to make and which I think is important. It is this. How are we going to get this information?
My leader has suggested that we should have a committee, and that has been refused. I wish to say a word or two more about that because I should like to make clear my feeling about that committee. It has been misrepresented, whether intentionally or otherwise. I think it is a reasonable suggestion and an important one. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said last night, it is a suggestion which the Minister of National Defence himself should have made. I am not at all sure that, from the party point of view, we should be suggesting it; because if we are fully taken into confidence, if we do get information, obviously the opportunity for criticism later on is less. But this is no time to be thinking about those things. This is the time to be trying to reach the best conclusions which can be reached.
The reason why I think that a defence committee is worth while is this. In this house, on both sides, we have men who have had war experience and who are probably men of as sound and able judgment as can be found anywhere in this country. Let us consider what will happen if there is a defence committee. Let me say in advance that nobody ever suggested that this was a means or a device whereby the responsibility of the minister was to be lessened, or whereby power was to be taken away from the cabinet. My leader made that as clear as crystal when he first

raised this question. But I put to the house this question. Is it or is it not desirable that, let us say, a dozen men in this house who have had most experience of war-and I suppose we must admit it will be those in the most recent war who would be best experienced- should be called in? Is it reasonable or unreasonable that they should be called in, should be put on a committee and have- and here is my point-a chance to talk to the experts? That is the whole point. I suggest that if these men are called in, and if there is a meeting at which these men have an opportunity to discuss with the experts, to make available their knowledge, information, and experience, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) ought to be in a much better position than he was before to reach a conclusion. That is the suggestion of a committee as I understand it. It is not an attempt to derogate from the cabinet. We have just as sound an understanding of cabinet government on this side of the house as hon. members on the other side. We have no desire to change it; we believe in it; but we do say the precedent of Great Britain is worth following. Incidentally we say that a committee of that kind should be useful and the idea should be accepted.
Let us see what the reasons are against the committee. We will first go to the Minister of National Defence. Of course the Minister of National Defence is incorrigible because he is a convert. He at one time believed in a committee. He wrote a very eloquent article on it. He changed his mind. He is a convert. We know the danger of converts becoming also bigots. So far as the minister is concerned, I think I am doing him no injustice. He has given us no good reason. He has told us quite frankly that he has changed his own mind. That is interesting. We are quite entitled to take the view that his first mind was just as good as his second mind. But the only other reason he has given us, so far as I know, was to say, without any warrant for it, that this was really an attempt to foist United States methods onto the government here, on our parliament here. There has never been that suggestion, nor a suggestion of any kind. The suggestion, as I tried to put it a few moments ago, is that we should have more information, and unless I am all wrong the course of getting information should result in a clearing of everyone's mind, and it should be of assistance to the minister himself.
Quite frankly, if the minister persists in this refusal he need not be surprised if people come to the conclusion that what he really does not want, for some reason that I cannot understand, is for members like the
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), whom the minister has praised in this house, to have the opportunity of discussing these matters or expressing his views face to face with the experts. - That of course is the important thing. That is what we do not get in the committee of the whole, and that is apparently what the minister wishes to deny us. I cannot understand his reasons.
I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was quite right when he said the minister ought to welcome it.
Then we had the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) give reasons. I am bound to say that I do not think the Prime Minister ever would have risen to where he did rise, namely, to the head of his profession, if he had offered to the courts before whom he had appeared reasons similar to the reasons which he offered us. Hon. members will recall that what the Prime Minister said, commenting in particular on what my leader had said about Mr. Churchill's comments, was this. He referred to a meeting of a committee in the United States where apparently the minister of national defence, if I understood the Prime Minister correctly, looked around and said: "Are there no spies from the Department of External Affairs in this committee to spy out what I am going to say?" Whether the Prime Minister was just giving a free translation of what happened, I do not know. But at any rate I think an exhibition of bad temper before a United States committee has no relevancy whatever to the validity of this proposal. I have known the Minister of National Defence for a good many years, and I would very much doubt whether he would indulge in any antics of that kind in the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The other thing the Prime Minister said was that we already had a committee. First of all he said that we had the cabinet as a committee, and then he said of course we had the committee of the whole. Well, now, the cabinet as a committee I am not going to deal with. We' in this house are perhaps apt to regard the cabinet as deciding things and then coming to us when they decide, rather than ever giving us an opportunity to discuss things at all. But so far as the committee of the whole is concerned, we all know the great weakness is that in the committee of the whole we never have direct access to those who are the experts, who have the information and who have the task of advising the minister. I can see no reason whatever that this should not be given, and I do hope that this matter may be reconsidered, and that we may have the suggestion of my leader
184	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell carried out and may have a committee for the purpose which I have endeavoured to suggest.
I should like to mention one other thing before I take my seat, namely, the question of inflation, the cost of living, which was dealt with in our amendment. I shall speak very briefly about that because we understand that proposals will be made by the government. But one thing I do wish to point out, namely, that apparently we are now proceeding to add to the already fairly extreme inflation by borrowing from the bank $300 million which is, of course, the most extreme and naked form of inflation. It means that we do not get the money by borrowing it from the taxpayer; it means the money is spent twice. We do not borrow it from the public, thereby lessening their spending power to that extent. We leave the money in the hands of the public and we get $300 million more from the banks. I am going to comment on that very briefly by reading one or two extracts from the speech delivered in this house almost exactly eleven years ago by Mr. Ilsley in his budget speech on September 12, 1939. I think it is a classic in respect of its treatment of inflation. I should like to read one or two brief extracts from it, which I think will make clear that what is being done now is exactly what was criticized in the strongest terms in 1939.
Before I read these extracts I wish to remind the house that in 1939 we were just emerging from a period of low employment, where our production had been away below its maximum. I would recall to the house the many assurances we have had-and quite true assurances-that at the present time our economy is functioning at a very high level indeed. With that by way of explanation I will read these few comments. The question of inflation is discussed in the speech. I recommend it to anyone who wishes to get a clear statement of the effects of inflation, and the methods of bringing it about. I am quoting from page 139 of Hansard of September 12, 1939:	.
We can also divert our resources to war purposes by inflation. We can create additional supplies of money and use them to purchase what we need.
Then further on he said:
It must be realized, therefore, that this inflationary method of financing a war is easily the most unfair and inequitable of all the methods of diverting labour and materials to wartime purposes. It represents merely a thinly disguised scheme of taxation of a most unjust type.
And one final quotation. The speech goes on to say that when an economy is below its maximum a certain amount of credit inflation could be justified, and in fact they did have some in the autumn of 1939; but that


was because things needed stimulating; that was because industry was at a somewhat low level, the absolute antithesis of the situation which we have now. This is the final quotation that I wish to read:	*
With an economy at full production and employment, the only result of expanding money and credit is to raise prices without increasing production. At such a point commences the cumulative spiral of inflation with all its deadly consequences to the economy.
I suggest that those who made this decision seem to have forgotten September 12, 1939. It seems that this logic is irresistible. It seems to me that what I have read applies in the most inescapable manner to the situation of today. It seems to me quite clear that what has been done is exactly the opposite of what was considered to be the wise thing as set out at that time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak briefly and directly to the subamendment moved by our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I do so because that subamendment contains proposals which are of serious concern to many of the people I have the honour to represent. I refer to the proposals to secure some measure of economic stability at home and abroad.
I have found in travelling around my constituency since the house rose at the end of June that a great number of my constituents are concerned about this problem. They are concerned at home with-the question of rising prices and the inflationary spiral of rising costs. They are concerned with the effect it has on the thinking or, shall I say, the psychology of the people of this Dominion of Canada. Then, in addition, particularly since the advent of the Korean war, they are very much concerned that in addition to its military preparation for the defence of this country and in support of its pledges to the United Nations, -this government should do more at least to work in co-operation with the other nations for the development of economic stability in undeveloped countries.
I should like first to read the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the subamendment by my leader, so as directly to focus the attention of the house on these questions. The amendment of the leader of the opposition reads in this way:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to provide adequately for the defence of Canada and have failed to take steps to deal with inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, our leader, added the following as an amendment to the amendment:
by the imposition of price controls and the provision of necessary subsidies; we regret further

that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to include in Canada's defence program substantial economic aid for underdeveloped countries, for it is the opinion of this house that the spread of communism cannot be prevented by military action alone, but only by the provision, in addition, of all possible assistance to bring about social and economic progress in such countries.
As I said before, we in this group believe that our subamendment offers a program for the development of economic stability at home and abroad. The day before yesterday I listened with a great deal of interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and noted with satisfaction that according to several statements he made on that occasion he must agree with a great portion of the contents of the subamendment moved by our leader. I was very interested to note that, as reported at page 90 of Hansard, he said this:
They can be met and overcome, as indeed they are being overcome, by the initiative of the free world in many places, notably in western Europe; but they cannot be defeated by military action alone. Military strength is absolutely necessary, of course, but it must be supplemented by imaginative economic and social programs if the march of communism as a social and economic doctrine is to be halted before it reaches a point at which a military attack will commend itself to the members of the politburo as likely to succeed.
My point is that, unfortunately, we in the House of Commons have listened on several occasions to very similar splendid statements but, to date, we see very little action on the part of the government to use its influence in the United Nations and in the domestic field to give effect to those high-sounding phrases -phrases with which we absolutely agree. This government has not given support to the proposal for a world food pool. This government has not given ear to the proposal of the agricultural producers of this country and the agricultural producers of the free world with respect to the distribution of food in undeveloped countries. This government has not brought the attention of the United Nations to the necessity for investment in underdeveloped countries, and the necessity for low-interest loans and, if necessary, gifts of equipment and so on.
In our opinion nothing has been done to convince the people of Asia, the peoples in the undeveloped portions of the world, that we are concerned in their welfare, their economic well-being and their economic security. I suggest that, as a concrete demonstration of our integrity, plans should now be drafted by the government, and announced, for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of South Korea, when this incident is ended.
I know very well that relatively we are a small nation, in population; but I think this
The Address-Mr. Herridge government can use its influence and its prestige in the United Nations to urge immediately the necessity of drafting a positive program for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of South Korea, so that we can prove to these people that we mean what we say, that we realize the necessity of giving assistance to them and that we intend to support a democratic regime. Our policy in my opinion should be a policy of helping the people of Asia, particularly, to help themselves. There they have masses of manpower and masses of labour. Surely if we face the problem in a constructive way, in co-operation with our fellow nations in the United Nations, we can do something constructive to turn the tide in Asia.
While I do not intend to speak at length this evening, I should like now to make a few suggestions to which effect could be given immediately, without great delay or expense on the part of the government or the United Nations Organization. I believe we should be bringing students to the North American continent from Asia, in large numbers, to be trained in our universities, technical schools and other institutions of that type. We should be bringing those students here so that we shall have a larger corps of people in those countries who will be trained in the principles of democratic institutions and democratic administration. We should have large numbers who are trained in our industrial techniques, and even greater numbers trained in our agricultural practices.
I suggest that is a program to which immediate effect could be given without any overall large expense. This would have a tremendous influence in my opinion and be of tremendous value in indicating to the people of those countries that we are interested in them and that we intend to help them to help themselves. When those countries, undeveloped and backward as they are in many respects, have established the democratic regimes which we hope will be established, they will require engineers, scientists, and scientific agriculturists. I am of the opinion that is something practical which could be done in the immediate future.
I am also of the opinion that we should supply to them surpluses of food and industrial equipment. These could be supplied in considerable quantities through the United Nations Organization and, I hope, as a result of prodding and insistence on the part of the Canadian government, and as a result of collective action by the United Nations. In my opinion it is only by means of economic stability that we can build permanent collective security. I look upon the military phase as



HOUSE Of

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Herridge being something that is unfortunately necessary, a temporary phase. That is all I am going to say on that aspect of the question. I mention it because a large number of the people I have the honour to represent are concerned with that aspect of the question. When the Atlantic pact was adopted in this house we were informed that it was to be not only a military assistance pact but a pact to bring together the nations of the Atlantic union for mutual economic aid, for economic assistance. We all know that to date very little has been done in that respect.
Now we have the Korean situation with its immediate military necessities. We in this group hope that this government will take the initiative and the lead, will use the prestige of Canada as a western progressive democratic nation to push these policies in the United Nations.
I wish to refer briefly to the second portion of our amendment which deals with price controls and subsidies. The question of price controls and subsidies is of increasing concern to a large number of Canadians who are finding it most difficult to carry on under present conditions. I was interested in reading the amendment moved by the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. It is obvious to anyone who reads that amendment that our friends to the right are changing their tune. I am glad to see that.
I was interested in reading Hansard of 1947 to note a reference to an article reported in the Toronto Star which was made by the high priest of free enterprise, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). The quotation which he gave at that time reads as follows:
It is not always easy to be as confident about the benefits of private enterprise as we would like to be. And if we should run into a minor recession, who is going to benefit by it? The Progressive Conservatives? No. The C.C.F. There are price agreements today. There are a lot of people trying to charge what the traffic will bear. If the businessmen really believed in freedom, they would not do that.
Apparently, from what has occurred, some ousinessmen in this country do not believe in freedom. I continue to quote:
Socialists say prices are going up. I say we are going to cure that by production. If we don't, then it is going to be too bad.
When the emergency powers legislation was being considered in 1946 and 1947 our friends to the right voted against controls and pressed for the return to free enterprise and free markets. That action was quite justifiable from their point of view, believing as they did that that was the only solution to the economic instability existing at that time. But what are the facts? Do not forget that the hon. member for Greenwood said
[Stage Direction]

that we were going to cure that condition by production. What he meant was rising prices. What has happened? Let us look at the figures of industrial and agricultural production.
The figures I intend to give are based on an index of 100 for the period 1935-39. The index for industrial production for 1947 is given as 175-9; for 1950 it is 195-6. There you have a considerable increase in industrial production. The index for agricultural production for 1947 is 116, and for 1949, 121-8. I was not able to get the index for the total production in Canada for 1947 and 1950 but I submit that the figures for industrial and agricultural production reflect fairly well the increase in the total production in Canada between 1947 and 1950, an increased production which the hon. member for Greenwood suggested would lower prices.
What has happened? The Canadian Statistical Review published by the bureau of statistics gives the following cost-of-living index figures:
1935-39	100
1947	135.5
1949	160.8
August 1, 1950	168.5
Instead of increased production reducing prices, with increased production we have had rising prices. Since the Korean incident there have been fluctuating and rapidly rising prices. I thing it can be truthfully said that the Progressive Conservative argument of 1947 has been proved definitely by the facts and figures to be invalid. I submit that the C.C.F. argument, which has been consistent throughout the years, that control and regulation are necessary in the modern state, has been proved to be valid. Regardless of our private opinions, in a modern industrial society increasing control must be exercised by the state.
This group is concerned about whom those controls will benefit. We want controls and regulations to be in the interests of the people as a whole. When you have controls that work in that direction you have social democracy. When you have controls and regulations which are applied in the interests of a minority then you are walking toward fascism. Our group has consistently advocated state controls and regulations in order to provide stability and security for the larger number of people in this country under present conditions. I do not think any hon. member can challenge the fact that the program of this group in that respect has been vindicated.
Before concluding I should like to bring to the attention of the house the serious condition that exists with regard to rising prices. I am interested to note that the champion of

free enterprise on the opposite side from Winnipeg-I forget his constituency-is listening with apparent interest and I trust he learns something.
John Lambert Gibson: He is reading a newspaper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to give some figures contained in a review made by the Financial Post which I think most hon. members will admit has provided fairly accurate information on financial matters, prices and so on, throughout the years. Since the Korean war the prices of bread, sugar and meat have gone up. What about clothing? These are all things that affect the lives of the average person in this country, particularly that half of the population which has a relatively small income. Wool has increased ten per cent since the Korean war. Cotton has increased ten per cent; rubber footwear ten per cent; shoes ten per cent and furniture five per cent on the average and in some cases ten per cent. Certain types of electrical equipment have increased in price by twenty per cent.
What about building materials, in which so many veterans and others in this country are interested? Many of these people felt that at last they could begin to build homes at the beginning of this year when materials were coming into greater supply. What do we find in that respect? The prices of nails, steel and steel tools have gone up an average of 15 per cent. Paint has gone up an average of 7i per cent. What about lumber? I know a little about lumber, as does the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), whom I see sitting over there and also listening with great interest. The fact is that the average price of lumber in Canada has increased to such an extent in the last six months that the cost of building an average home has increased $500. That is a most serious thing, Mr. Speaker, to people whose resources are limited. The increase since April 1 varies according to the locality and the type of lumber-


John Lambert Gibson: How about your locality?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -from 20 to 90 per cent. On April 1 this year dressed dimension timber was being sold in British Columbia for $45 a thousand. Today it is being sold for $87 a thousand from some mills.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Those prices have gone up, stimulated largely by the great United States demand for lumber, although on the whole there has been a relatively slight increase in the cost of operation of such companies and the manufacture of the lumber. Owing to the
The Address-Mr. Herridge increase in freight rates the cost of transportation has gone up, as we all know. That is reflected in the cost of living of the average person. What about telephone service? I have not the figures for British Columbia, but I have the Financial Post and I shall read the figures for Ontario. In Ontario the cost of long distance telephone calls has been increased by 20 per cent in recent months. Ontario local telephone calls have been increased by 10 per cent, and so we go on.
I have mentioned a few of the basic essentials in the cost of living, food, furniture, clothing, housing and transportation. All these have shown rapid increases. What is the result? It results not only in economic instability but also in psychological instability. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, democracy cannot function and develop satisfactorily unless it operates in an atmosphere of relative security. In a period of insecurity an opportunity is provided to extremes of the right or left to appeal to the people suffering under such circumstances. The greatest necessity for democracy is at least a relative measure of security for the great mass of the population of the country.
What effect has this had on the working people? Union contracts are made for a year, some for two years, and in some cases as much as from three to five years. How can you expect labour stability, how can you expect labour peace when within the last three or four or five months-six months at the most-we have had these increases in the basic cost of living? Look at the insecurity of the average wage earner. Look at the insecurity of everybody in this country, wage earners, business people and others. Some contractors today are bidding exorbitant amounts for construction jobs because they are not quite certain what the cost of materials is going to be. I know one contractor who bid $36,000 for the construction of a wharf in my constituency on the basis of purchasing his lumber last April at $45 a thousand. Mind you, piling and timber products compose the greater portion of the materials used in the construction of wharves in a district such as mine. If he proceeds with the contract under present prices he may lose thousands of dollars.
That situation is permeating our whole economy. There is the position of the wage earner, the small businessman, the contractor, and all those people who are taking part in the development of the country. What about the old age pensioners? Last session we were talking about $50 a month for old age pensioners. The increases that have taken place already in the cost of living would have wiped out the advantage that the extra

The Address-Mr. J. G. L. Langlois $10 would have given them. What about the disability pensioners who received an increase of 25 per cent a year or two ago? Look at the increase in the cost of living. What about war veterans allowance? Surely parliament could do something about that in view of the increasing cost of living. What about industrial pensions? Many people have retired on small pensions that were bought with dollars that, twenty, thirty or forty years ago, purchased three to five times as much as dollars do today. What about those who have retired on annuities, the many little people living on fixed incomes of various types?
It is a most serious situation, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about it. Whether or not we like the suggestion of controls and regulations, if our economy is to remain on a democratic basis, if we are going to have the necessary measure of stability in the country, both economic and psychological, it is absolutely necessary that the government give immediate and serious attention to invoking a measure of price control and subsidies. Again I say that time has proven our policy correct in this respect. In the interests of the Canadian people as a whole,
I trust what are now, I am sure, the repentant Liberals and Progressive Conservatives will support the amendment to the amendment when the vote is taken.
(Translation):


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased, at the outset of my remarks, to join with other members who spoke before in congratulating the mover (Mr. Cafmon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the excellent speeches they both delivered.
The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine has fulfilled his duty particularly well and I join with him in thanking the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the honour he has bestowed upon the electors of Iles-de-la-Madeleine in giving their representative in this house the opportunity once more to speak in this important debate. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in five years the representative of Iles-de-la-Madeleine has moved or seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In 1945, at the first session of the twentieth parliament, I had the honour, as representative of the constituency of Gaspe, which included then the Magdalen islands, to second the motion for an address to- His Excellency the Governor General of Canada. The seconder has also carried out his task admirably well and I reiterate my congratulations to both speakers.


(Text):
I also wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on his choice of two new ministers to head the Department of Labour and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The newly appointed ministers both have remarkable records of service in the armed forces and in the public service of Canada. They are highly qualified to fill their new appointments, and I feel sure I express the opinion of the house when I wish both of them every success in their new jobs.
Now that we have disposed of the important question of the railway strike, the attention of the house is directed toward the important problems arising out of the international situation and their implications so far as the affairs of Canada are concerned. Much has been said so far in this debate on these important subjects. I wish to draw the attention of the house, 'Mr. Speaker, more particularly to the remarks made last night by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). I do not intend to attempt to surpass the efforts of my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney), who did a remarkable job in tearing that speech to pieces in the few moments at his disposal. I do want to convey, however, the impression that I gained last night as I listened to the speech. In one breath the hon. member said he blamed the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for depriving the west coast of protection by sending three destroyers to Korea. In the next breath, and during the same speech, Mr. Speaker, he blamed the government for not having sent the army to Korea. It is hard for me, as I imagine it is for most members in this house, to reconcile the two ideas expressed in that speech by the member for Nanaimo.
At this stage I wish to join with my colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, in asking our friends of the opposition to try to get together for once on this problem. I ask the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to repeat in this house the statement he made elsewhere when he requested the veterans of the last war not to join the special force for Korea. This statement is in direct conflict with the statement made last night by the military critic of the opposition, or should I say expert, the member for Nanaimo. I also hope that at an early stage in this debate we have the opportunity of hearing from the two Conservative representatives from the province of Quebec. I am curious to find out what they think on this subject, and I believe the people of the province of Quebec would also like to know whether these two hon. gentlemen will fall in line with the statements made by their leader and their colleague, the member for Nanaimo.

This international situation, Mr. Speaker, is grave, and has serious implications so far as the affairs of this country are concerned. I was glad to hear the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). They both gave this house as full statements of the policy of their respective departments as the members could reasonably expect. Now that we are aware of the policies of these two departments, we are in a position to study the important measures which this house will be asked to pass in the next few days. Tonight we listened to a speech by the member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin). Since the hon. member for Beauce spoke in French, I shall comment on his speech in that language.
(Translation):
Tonight I had the pleasure of listening to the speech of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin). I believe I am being fair to him in saying what follows is a summary, as complete as possible, of the remarks he made. The hon. member has contended that the Korean problem is but a family quarrel, a dispute between two sections of the same country that disagreed with one another and that it is a matter of uniting estranged brothers. Those are the exact terms he used.
I feel duty bound to set things straight and especially to point out to him that Korea was not divided into North and South Korea through a common understanding between the United States and Russia, as he seemed to imply in his remarks. Those who have seen the facts brought to light by our daily newspapers since the beginning of the conflict know that such is not the case. Everyone knows that North Korea is under communist domination. I do not believe it is necessary to quote facts to prove my contention. What is the government's policy in regard to Korea? Why is Canada taking part in the Korean conflict? In answer to those questions may I first be permitted to quote an editorial appearing under the signature of Mr. Camille L'Heureux, in Le Droit of Wednesday August 9. The item is entitled:	"To safeguard peace". I quote:
Prime Minister St. Laurent announced Monday-night the policy the Canadian government will follow in order to ward off a new world war and, if we have the misfortune to be thrown into it, to ensure our freedom within the framework of the United Nations and the Atlantic pact.
This policy involves the setting up, through voluntary enlistment, of a special brigade, which will enable our country to fulfil its international obligations towards the United Nations and as a
The Address-Mr. J. G. L. Langlois signatory power of the Atlantic pact; intensification of recruiting for active service in Canada's air, ground and naval forces; increased production of war material of all kinds: planes, warships, munitions.	[DOT]
Without hesitation, our paper gives support, in principle, to that policy. It also agrees with the general lines the Prime Minister has already indicated. As for the details, the special session which will be summoned within six or seven weeks will afford us an opportunity to appraise them.
And the newspaper added:
Those who imagine that simply by wanting peace they will avoid war and preserve the rest of the free world from soviet slavery are mistaken. While exerting every effort to solve international problems by peaceful means, we must take all necessary precautions so that our common weaknesses may not induce an aggressor to launch an attack. Politically speaking, the free world's main chance of maintaining peace rests in the union of all its forces under the United Nations and the North Atlantic pact which supplements the charter. Canada is both a member of the United Nations and a party to the pact. It cannot refuse now to assume its obligations in accordance with its means. No nation mindful of its own interests and of the general interests of the world must, in fact, remain an idle spectator, unperturbably neutral in the face of the present international situation. This is what the Canadian government, under the leadership of Mr. St. Laurent, has realized, and rightly so.
I read that article first because in my opinion it answers the two questions I have just asked. In that article Le Droit states the issue.
In a subsequent article the same newspaper glaringly contradicts the facts mentioned tonight by the hon. member for Beauce.
I refer now to an article that appeared in the same newspaper on August 18, 1950, also signed by Camille L'Heureux. I quote:
The stand of the Soviet and of certain Canadians with regard to the police action by the United Nations in Korea is strikingly similar.
What does Moscow claim? At first, in Korea we were faced with only a civil war. It was merely a matter of internal politics and of no possible concern to the United Nations, the United States or any other nation. Subsequently Washington was guilty of aggression against that country under the cloak of the United Nations. To prevent war from spreading and for the sake of international peace, Koreans should be left to settle their own internal problems.
Mr. Speaker, I would call your attention to the similarity between what Le Droit states to be Moscow's claim and the speech the hon. member has delivered tonight.
I quote further:
According to Soviet Russia, Canada has therefore no business in the Korean struggle. By taking part in it, Canada is getting involved in matters in which it is not concerned, just as the United States and the United Nations, and thus risks spreading the scope of the struggle.
In a practically identical form, this opinion is held by some Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would add that if this article carried tomorrow's date rather than

The Address-Mr. J. G. L. Langlois that of August 18, Mr. L'Heureux could also say:
-and by the member for Beauce.
The editorial goes on:
Thus, since the beginning of the invasion of South Korea by North Korea, we hear or read opinions such as these: Canada has no business in this conflict; it is only a civil war; it is a clash between two powerful antagonists; to take part in the struggle would mean spreading the scope of the struggle.
Canada must follow a policy of absolute neutrality or non-intervention.
The hon. member for Beauce stated tonight that he is not opposed to the training of soldiers as long as we keep them at home.
That is the policy of non-intervention mentioned in Le Droit, the policy of isolation criticized in the article I have just quoted.
According to Canadians who speak thus, Stalin is defending the right and common good of the whole world, as well as Canada's general interests, in the Korean conflict. That is the logical but false conclusion which from the legal and practical standpoints stems from these two basically identical arguments.
Thus could be justified, at one fell swoop, the tactics which enabled Russia, through her agents-
And that is what happened in Korea.
-to impose her will in Poland, Roumania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and western Germany. Moscow has always put forward the same principles: solution of a political difficulty of purely internal character, non-intervention of foreign powers and of the United Nations, will of the majority but, in fact, dictatorship by the minority.
Le Droit represents a group of men whose opinions,-and with that everybody agrees,- are not always shared by the government with which I have the honour of sitting tonight. Everyone in my province is equally convinced of the neutrality and independence of that newspaper in the political field.
If the hon. member for Beauce is still in a state of uncertainty as to the soundness of the policy of this government in respect to the Korean problem, may I refer him to a leading editorial appearing in the Thursday edition of L'Action Catholique. Allow me to quote in part this important editorial:
Certain acts of aggression are tantamount to an attempt on the majesty of God.
First of all, this is what Pius XXI has to say about a war of aggression. In this speech delivered Christmas day 1948, the Pope stated:
Any war of aggression against these values that the divine order of peace unconditionally compels to respect and' guarantee, and consequently also to protect and defend, is a sin, an offence and an attempt against the majesty of God, creator of the world and source of all order.
It is not only against another state that the aggressor directs his attacks, but against the very

majesty of God, against the order He has created. And so it is that serious responsibilities stem from this vital truth. Pope Pius XII adds:	A people
threatened by or already the victim of an unjust aggression cannot, if it is to think and act in a Christian manner, remain passively indifferent; it therefore stands that the solidarity of the family of nations prohibits them from acting as idle spectators and preserving an attitude of unconcerned neutrality.
I call the attention of the hon. member to the following paragraph:
Therefore, now and henceforth condemnation is already heaped on the attitude of those who, unthinkingly we hope, oppose any Canadian intervention in world affairs. Let them reflect upon this other judgment of the Holy Father:
Who can even estimate the damage caused in the past by such indifference, quite foreign to Christian feelings, towards an aggressive war. How sharply it has made us feel that there was a lack of security among the "great" powers and particularly among the "small" ones! Has it, by way of compensation, brought any advantages? On the contrary, it has only heartened and encouraged those guilty of aggression, forcing every nation, left to its own devices, to increase its armament to an indefinite extent.
Here is a last quotation taken from the same newspaper, L'Action Catholique, of Friday, September 1. This article is entitled: "Canada and Korea". I shall not read the first part of that article in which a review is made of the facts already mentioned in the articles which I have just quoted from La Droit. There are two subtitles which read as follows: "There has been an unjustified aggression" and "Intervention is logical". I quote:
It would seem clear that Canada, from the standpoint of Christian principles-
I would again call the attention of the hon. member for Beauce to the expression "from the standpoint of Christian principles".
-has the moral as well as the legal obligation to intervene; but can it be strictly concluded that such intervention must be military?
The Church lets states determine the manner in which they can perform their duty. It is for the Canadian government to decide how it can best defeat aggression and bring the aggressor to reason. Citizens are quite free to express opinions in this regard provided they do so without hatred or passion and with respect for the opinion of others.
As for us, we cannot consider it illogical that Canada should play its part, even a military part-
I repeat "even a military part".
-to quell the aggressor, provided our leaders have due regard for our real responsibilities, the requirements of our security and provided especially their ultimate purpose is to prevent, and not to launch war, and so put an end as quickly as possible to the Russian problem.
Mr. Speaker, it is admittedly not for me to give advice to the hon. member for Beauce. However, I urge him to study the articles I have just quoted. He will find that the

remarks he made tonight by no means agree with the opinion expressed by those two newspapers, which are leaders of public opinion in my province and other Frenchspeaking centres.
As has been explained by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), our policy of intervention in Korea is the logical consequence of our membership in the United Nations and their operation, as well as the logical consequence of our share in the organization, operation and application of the North Atlantic pact.
In 1945, Canada played a leading part in the United Nations Organization. At the initial meeting in San Francisco, the former prime minister and the present Prime Minister both played a part which was all to the honour of Canada. That was on the eve of the general election of 1945.
Did the people of my province and the people of this country condemn, in 1945, the attitude of the late Mackenzie King and the present Prime Minister, after they had just taken part in the organization of the United Nations? Needless to add that the people of this country during the elections which immediately followed this first organizational conference supported heartily the stand taken by the late Mackenzie King and the present Prime Minister.
Moreover, when Canada made the decision to adhere to the North Atlantic pact, the people of my province gave their support to the Prime Minister for the attitude he had taken and we are proud of our part in the organization of this pact of friendship and mutual assistance. In 1949 in fact, the present Prime Minister paid a visit to the electors of his province and to those of the whole country and explained to them the obligations implied for Canada. What was the answer of the people of Canada? I am sure that the hon. member for Beauce remembers that answer. They gave it with a firm and unanimous voice on June 27, 1949, when they sent to Ottawa, to conduct the business of this country for another five-year term, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent by the biggest majority ever given a political leader in Canada.
My hon. colleague from Beauce has claimed tonight he was expressing and abiding by the opinion of his electors. That is a very easy part to play. Yet, although the hon. member represents in this house the people of Beauce constituency, he must not remain under the impression that that is all he has to do. We are here to help direct the affairs of
The Address-Mr. J. G. L. Langlois the Canadian nation. It is true that we represent our respective constituencies, but we have, each and every one of us, responsibilities towards the whole people of Canada. Even if the hon. member for Beauce is under the impression that the voters of his constituency share his opinion, it nevertheless devolves upon him to consider the interests of Canada as a whole.
I wish to point out to my colleague that he belongs to one of the opposition groups and as such it is his duty in this house to speak on behalf of his province within that group. As I believe there are certain links, certain affiliations between him and the other Conservative members from the province of Quebec in this house, I would ask him to advise his colleagues from Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and from Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) to go on record on this important issue. As I said a moment ago in English, not only their colleagues in this house but the whole population of the province of Quebec have the right to know what they think; they have the right to know once and for all what their stand is with regard to this crisis, this serious situation.
As I stated a while ago, after the 1945 elections and the 1949 elections, we were able to conclude from the overwhelming majority obtained that the nation supported the logical and sensible policy which our Prime Minister stated on behalf of Canada before the United Nations and the countries bound by the North Atlantic pact. The majority obtained all over Canada by the Prime Minister was more overwhelming in the province of the hon. member for Beauce than anywhere else in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the electors of the province of Quebec do not like war; I do not like it any better than the hon. member for Beauce. I only wish to remind him that I had the honour of serving for five years and some months during the last war. I hate war, everyone hates war; nobody wants another conflict. However, as has been so well said by the editor of Le Droit, when it is forced upon us, we must defend ourselves and repel aggression wherever it breaks out.
Such should be the stand of every rightthinking Canadian in the present instance. There can be no other.
Before concluding my remarks I would like to mention more particularly the part played by Canada's naval forces in this conflict. As I stated earlier, I had the honour

The Address-Division
of serving in the navy during the last war. I have always been proud of the humble part I played in the activities of the Canadian navy and I am twice as proud today for having had that privilege when I realize that the Canadian navy is carrying on its difficult task in Korea. I hope that it will always be able to keep up that tradition, so dear to the hearts of our sailors, of being the first in action.
I read in some newspapers that complaints were made to the effect that the activities of the Canadian navy in Korea were not known by the public. Let me point out to those who complain that what is most typical of the Canadian navy is that it is the silent service; "the silent navy" as we call it. We take pride in keeping this tradition because the members of the Canadian navy find immediate reward for their valour in having done their duty and in having once again carried proudly the great name of Canada in the Korean conflict.
Mr. Speaker, the three units of the Canadian navy engaged in action today remind me of the glorious part played by the same navy at the beginning of the 1939-1945 war when, practically alone, it protected our convoys across the north Atlantic.
Those who have read the memoirs of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill were proud, as Canadians, to realize that in his book the eminent statesman conceded great importance to the part played by the Canadian navy in world war II.
I am certain that my former comrades in arms of the Royal Canadian Navy will again be a credit to their country in Korea and will again fill us with legitimate pride in days to come.
(Text):


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I should first of all like to offer congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I realize fully the difficulty that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) and the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett) were under in making their addresses because at this session there was a considerable departure from the customary speech from the throne. Consequently they were not permitted to make the usual speeches that such an event calls for. Under the circumstances I think I can join with all other members of the house in congratulating them on doing a very difficult task in a most excellent manner indeed.
As all hon, members are aware, this session was called for two purposes only. The first of those purposes has now been accomplished. The railroad strike has been settled, and I may say that the action of the union leaders following the decision of parliament is indeed to be commended. It was a great

pleasure to me, as a new Canadian, to see the straightforward way in which the union leaders accepted the direction of parliament when the decision had been made. I feel certain that any bitterness occasioned by the strike has now been forgotten. I feel sure that all of us realize the just demands of these men of the unions. Some of us may think they went a little too far in actually engaging in a strike but we realize the justice of their demands, and I feel that most of us will want the official arbitrator to bear that in mind in coming to any decision he may have to reach in the event of a settlement not being arrived at between labour and management.
I also trust that the demands made with respect to two of the unions in particular, those connected with water transport and railway hotels, will not be forgotten in the event of a settlement by arbitration becoming necessary. We all realize that the cost of living has spiralled and the wages of the workers have not gone up in accordance with the spiralling cost of living. Therefore it is only fair and just that both water transport and railway hotel workers should be given the same proportionate increase in their wages as the regular railway workers.
I am particularly interested in the water transport workers, and I speak with some vestige of authority because of the fact, through accident or otherwise, that for a space of three years I was the president of a labour union known as the Newfoundland seamen's union. As you are aware, the greatest and last province of Canada is an island, and the only connection with the railways is by water ferry. I am quite certain that the water ferry providing the connection between Port aux Basques and North Sydney, and the operators thereof, should be regarded in exactly the same light as all other operators of the Newfoundland services of the Canadian National Railways. I feel that the same provisions should apply to the other steamships operated by the C.N.R. on our coast, and indeed on the west coast of Canada as well. Having made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have no more to say so far as that subject is concerned. It is a closed chapter, and I think it has been closed in such a way that it has done honour not only to this parliament but also to the unions of Canada.
It is unfortunate that the second part of our troubles occasioning the calling of this session of parliament could not have been settled in somewhat the same way. It is true that we have introduced into labour matters a new factor that labour did not want to see, and which my leader very properly called compulsory abritration. It is, in effect, compulsory arbitration. I trust it is merely in effect to 69262-13
The Address-Mr. Higgins settle this one particular difficulty, and that it will not be used as a pattern in the future. If we could use compulsory arbitration in the case of the other difficulty that we are now facing, then I think every one of us would be satisfied to regard it as a just and proper way to handle the situation. Unfortunately we cannot handle it by arbitration. It would appear that the only way to meet the threat to the whole civilized world as we know it, and not only to Korea, is by force.
The other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) gave us a very clear exposition of the situation, and he was followed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). Frankly, however, I must say that I was confused in the picture that I had on leaving here when parliament prorogued last June. I understood, and I believe many other members of parliament had the same impression, that in so far as Canada's defence forces were concerned everything was rosy. If the picture was rosy then it does not appear to be too rosy at the present time. If we take the situation as presented by the Minister of National Defence and the picture presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and some others, there is great divergence in their opinions and views. Somebody must be wrong. I do not know who is wrong, but somebody must be.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Gordon Francis Higgins: One thing we do know is that hon. members can evaluate for themselves the rather extraordinary statement-at least it was to me-made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I listened to him the other night rather carefully, as I am sure we all did, and I read the statement again to be quite certain I had heard it correctly. At page 94 of Hansard he said:
Canadian defence policy, therefore, until June of this year, had been based on the concept of providing a small, highly-skilled regular army, charged with responsibility of doing its immediate share of North American defence, especially in the Arctic, and designed to be capable of rapid expansion in the event of a general war which might require Canada to be defended outside of Canada.
This is the important part of that paragraph.
The furnishing to the United Nations on short notice of expeditionary forces capable of quick deployment in distant areas wherever acts of aggression might take place had not, I admit, entered into our planning as it had not entered into the planning of any other country.
To me, Mr. Speaker, that was a most extraordinary statement. I do not blame the Secretary of State for External Affairs for not expecting a war in Korea. Surely, however, with the picture presented to us in June of last year, and indeed I believe in October, 1949, he and the cabinet must have

The Address-Mr. Higgins expected a war, such as broke out in Korea, to occur somewhere. There could be no question of that. A war was expected somewhere, because that was the policy of Russia, and yet no plans whatever were made to take care of that war.


Some hon. Members:: What war?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not care what war it was. Perhaps there is no war over in Korea. Perhaps hon. members of the government feel there is no war. It is probably just a little picnic over there.
It does appear to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a rather extraordinary statement to say that no plans were put into effect for such an eventuality; that had to be taken into consideration, and that was the thinking of the minister. It must have been. What was done about it? Nothing.
Then there is the statement of the Minister of National Defence at page 99 of Hansard. He said:
That is not ordinarily the role of a medium size nation, and it was not the planned role of Canada. It was no part of our defence program; there was no promise that it would be done, and there was no suggestion that we should prepare to do it.
It is difficult to reconcile that statement with the statement of the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, who at page 85 of Hansard says:
Canada, Mr. Speaker, is a member of the United Nations. She signed the United Nations charter in
1945, and this signature was ratified by both houses of parliament. Under the charter Canada has assumed obligations toward the other signatory nations. She has agreed to take effective collective measures for the suppression of acts of aggression, to give the United Nations every assistance in any action they take in accordance with the charter, and to accept and to carry out the decisions of the security council, also in accordance with the charter.


William Alfred Robinson: Why don't you go on to tell about the representations which Canada made to the United Nations in 1946?


Gordon Francis Higgins: There must be many people very interested in this matter. I am grateful to them for their interest, and for following me as closely as they have. Having heard my leader, and knowing the amount of money that has been spent during the past five years -I believe a billion and a half dollars-it would appear as though the goods were ordered, were paid for, but were not delivered. Who is responsible for that? I do not know. It is not any hon. member on this side of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is eleven o'clock, so I would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 4, 1950