1950-09-01

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table a report, in English and in French, of the Department of External Affairs on "Canada and the Korean Crisis".



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I owe an apology to certain hon. members of this house in respect of the arrangements made for the sittings of the house, and I should like to make that apology publicly. These hon. members have called to my attention some ambiguity in the language I used here on Tuesday, as reported on page 2 of Hansard, and told me they took it to mean that I was not asking that the house sit tomorrow if the bill dealing with the resumption of railway operations was disposed of.
I am sorry there was any misunderstanding as to that. In speaking as I did on Tuesday I was not trying to impose upon the house my views as to what might be the best way to proceed, but was endeavouring to get something definite which would represent what was generally desired by the members of the house. On Monday I had drafted a certain motion in that regard, and Monday evening had the advantage of meeting with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other groups, to whom I gave copies of the draft motion which had been prepared. The next day representations were made to me that hon. members probably would not be prepared to commit themselves to three sittings a day beyond the time required to dispose of the railway legislation. I was under the impression that that was the only point in the draft motion to which any exception was apt to be taken, and I had the motion redrafted to provide that the three sittings a day would continue only during the time required to deal with the railway legislation; and I made no other change.
When I spoke as is reported on page 2 of Hansard, the only thing I had in mind was to 09 262-8i
point out that this objection to three sittings a day had been taken and that the motion originally prepared had been intended to provide three sittings even on Saturday, but that I had taken out that provision except for the railway bill. Some hon. members have told me they were under the impression that
1	had taken out everything beyond the provision of the rules for normal sittings, and that I would have to ask the house for another commitment to do anything beyond that. I did not realize this. When I presented the motion I read it as it appears on page 4 of Hansard, and I was under the impression that its terms were understood by everyone. I am told that it was not thus understood by certain hon. members. I am very sorry there was any possibility of ambiguity in the language that appears on page 2 of Hansard, and certainly I do not want to appear to be taking advantage of any misunderstanding. I would hope that if anyone wished again to take the sense of the house on this question, you, Mr. Speaker, would permit that to be done. Naturally I would hope that the decision might be the same and that we would sit tomorrow and Monday. As a matter of fact I had another conference with the leaders yesterday morning, at which we discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to sit on Monday, and I believe my recollection is correct that it was agreed that since we were sitting on Saturday it would be just as well to sit on Monday, since that is what we usually do on legal holidays, except those having high religious significance. So I would hope that even if the question is put again the same conclusion might be reached, because I think a great many hope that at this special session we might be able to dispose next week of all that requires to be done, and not too hurriedly at that; for this is by no means the last time parliament will meet. But so that there may be no possible feeling that anyone is being held to something that he did not understand, if any hon. member wishes to have the sense of the house expressed again I would hope, Mr. Speaker, you would find it possible to allow that to be done.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: greatly appreciate the remarks the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has just made. He referred to what he said as reported on pages
2	and 3 of Hansard, and it would appear from

Business of the House
that that after Bill No. 1 had been dealt with the question of the sittings of the house would again be referred to the house. I have no objection to sitting on Labour day, and I have no great -objection to sitting three times a day. I do believe, however, Mr. Speaker, that the matters we came here to discuss are of such importance that they should not be discussed jn an atmosphere similar to getting in the -harvest before it rains.
- The. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) both made important speeches in this house yesterday. They referred to the matters with which we shall have to deal. I imagine they made those speeches after a great deal of study, and after receiving considerable help from the staffs of their departments. I believe it is asking too much of the members of this house, if they are to give those matters the consideration they should receive, and having always in mind the fact that the young men of this country are already dying in the struggle that is now taking place, to sit in this house for eight hours a day six days in the week.
I can understand the members desiring to return to their homes. If it is put on that basis, I do not think there is anyone in this house who has more reason for wanting to get home quickly than I have. I live in the finest province in Canada, with its towering peaks and green grassy glades which may be enjoyed wherever you are. But if hon. members have any doubt about the province, there can be no doubt that my city is the most beautiful. I do not want to put this on too personal a basis, but my family relations are such that it is always a pleasure for me to be at home. On all these bases, therefore, I say there is no one in this house more anxious to get home and enjoy family life than I am.
I say that this government is not being fair to the people of Canada if it forces us to deal with these -matters under pressure. I would suggest to the members-I do not want to say anything now that might get the members on the government side on edge so that they will not agree with me, because the members on my own side are in agreement with me-that if they do not think it is desirable that they should discuss the matters before us now, surely they should allow the opposition- members of this house to do so. I am surprised at the opposition members who complain so frequently about the failure of this government to use parliament, but who cheer when it is said we are only going to be here for a week.


An hon. Member:: Who did that?


Angus MacInnis: You are in a better position to see than I am. That was what happened when the Prime Minister said we might get through next week. I ask the Prime Minister at least to let us have Saturday, so that we might have a little time to deal with the important matters that his ministers put before us yesterday.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an- opportunity to submit this whole question to a caucus of our members, but from what I have been able to gather from talking with individuals I feel that they are in accord with the sentiments expressed by the -member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). They do feel that there are matters which have been placed before us that require most -careful consideration. We are not going to say we should not sit on Saturday, because if in its wisdom the house decides we should sit on Saturday we shall fall in with that decision. I point out that we have not yet had a chance to give -collective consideration, as a group, to the speeches delivered yesterday containing matters of government policy.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No motion having been submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, I have none to submit, fLater]:


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested to ask you if you would accept, without notice, a motion dealing with the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe it was the unanimous view of the house that a motion should be accepted if one were made. One was not made, and I therefore proceeded with other business. I understand now that when the house adjourns today it will stand adjourned until tomorrow at three o'clock in the afternoon.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the -matter was decided rather hurriedly. Would you accept a motion, if I made it, that when the house adjourns tonight it stand adjourned until three o'clock on Monday?


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of the house. The motion would have to be presented by leave of the house. Has the hon. member leave to present the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the house is prepared to give the hon. member leave to make a motion with respect to tomorrow's sittings.


Major James William Coldwell: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I move now:

That when the house adjourns this day, it do stand adjourned until Monday next at three o'clock p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Coldwell moves, seconded by Mr. Maclnnis, that when the house adjourns this day, it do stand adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m.


Major James William Coldwell: No-three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say to hon. members that in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday there is a notice of motion in the name of the Prime Minister which reads as follows:
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 six o'clock p.m., there shall be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.


Major James William Coldwell: If the Prime Minister's
motion, which will come later, is passed, it will supersede mine.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the hon. member
might eliminate from his motion any reference to the hour of meeting on Monday, and simply have it say that when the house rises today it stand adjourned until Monday-


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, until Monday.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -without making any determination now what the hour will be.


Mr. Speaker:: When I adjourn the house
tonight, if the motion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar carries, and unless the motion appearing in Votes and Proceedings is considered today, I would have to adjourn the house until three o'clock on Monday. It might be better to consider the Prime Minister's notice of motion with respect to sittings next week, before we consider the motion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest a compromise that I think will suit everyone? If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will just change his "three o'clock" on Monday to "eleven o'clock", it will support the Prime Minister's notice of motion and give the rest of us everything we want.


Major James William Coldwell: Although that is a separate question and will be dealt with when the Prime Minister's motion comes before the house, in order to please everybody with regard to the type of motion that is proposed I will accept the suggestion of eleven o'clock on Monday morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for that
question?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion would be that
when the house adjourns this day it will stand adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m. Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please
say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have


Major James William Coldwell: It sounded that way.
Motion (Mr. Coldwell) negatived.



INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in order to clarify the situation with regard to the sittings next week. Is it or is it not intended that private members' motions will be called at this special session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not intended1 that private members' motions will be called at this session.



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF

[Stage Direction]
CONTROL MEASURES '' 1 :
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Can he say whether it is the intention of the government at this session to present any measure dealing with the control of prices?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not in a position to give an
answer to that question at this moment. The matter is under consideration. As soon as a decision has been reached, it will be announced.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I thought I saw the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in the house, but in any event I will put this question, which can be taken as notice. It arises out of a perfunctory question and an informal answer thereto as found in Hansard at page 81, with regard to transportation.
no

The Address-Mr. Drew
I desire to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Is not the federal government instead of the Canadian National Railways responsible for the breach of the union contract of 1873 made between Prince Edward Island and the Dominion of Canada, and for the tie-up of government-owned steamers operating between Prince Edward Island and the mainland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. From what the hon. member has said, it does not seem to me that is a proper question to be asked at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
-TIE-UP OF WEST COAST STEAMSHIPS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Has the minister any information to give with regard to the tie-up of coast steamships as a result of the strike of the seafarers' international union now in progress in British Columbia?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: This matter is under careful attention by officials of my department. I can say no more now, but I hope to be able to make an informed reply later.


Mr. Graydon:: Will that mean another
special session?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, August 31, 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.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this session was called to consider two urgent and extremely important matters. One was the railway strike and the way in which the railways could be brought back into operation. The other was the international situation and the organization for defence which that situation imposes upon us. Both were matters calling for immediate consideration. The speech from the throne is simply an agenda indicating the two important subjects that are to be discussed. The first has been disposed of. In disposing of it, because of the urgency and also, I am inclined to think, because of the fact that the speech from the throne did no more than indicate the subject matter, the debate on the speech from the throne was postponed so that hon. members might deal immediately with the operative provision


being made by the government to deal with this situation. The legislation to restore the operation of the railways was brought before us and was dealt with. That seemed to meet with the general approval of the members of this house.
We now have another urgent matter to consider; and in many ways it is an even more important matter in its ultimate implications. There again in the speech from the throne we have nothing but a reference to the subject matter. We have no information as to the details that are to be placed before us, and we are therefore not in a position at the moment to say what the government has indicated it intends to do or does not intend to do, beyond the mere fact that the matter is to be brought before us.
It seemed to me that, following the procedure which had been adopted in dealing with the railway strike, it would be better that the debate should proceed on the appropriations bill after the house had heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), so that hon. members might have such details as these two ministers were prepared to give with respect to the conditions and the proposals they had in mind in relation thereto. When I entered the house yesterday afternoon I had hoped-in fact I had understood-that that was the course we were to follow. With no information in the speech from the throne, such as is generally conveyed, it seemed that this was the method by which we could best have a debate on the second of those vitally important subjects.
There are other subjects that hon. members will wish to discuss and that undoubtedly will be brought up. Reports have appeared in the press, attributed to reliable sources in Ottawa, that the government intends to introduce some measures designed to deal with the inflationary pressures created by increased government spending, and by other circumstances which have arisen. The rapidly mounting cost of living and the very real threat of inflation are causing great concern today to all Canadians. Without some indication from the government whether it proposes to deal with this subject, and if so in what way, hon. members are not in a position to determine whether they should raise these questions in the debate at this time or should wait in the hope that proposals will be placed before the house to deal with them.
It was for that reason that I had hoped we might deal with the operative provision being introduced by the government in connection with the second of those two very important

subjects, just as we did with the first. When that had been dealt with, the government could then indicate what steps it proposed to take to deal with any of the situations arising as a result of the new expenditures and new taxation which may be approved by parliament.
It seemed to me that this would be a much more orderly and expeditious manner to deal with the questions before us. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is to speak in this debate, I suggest to him that he consider the desirability of adjourning the debate after he and the leaders of the parties have spoken, and then proceed to deal with the appropriations bill-which is the operative measure under which we can most satisfactorily discuss the international situation and national defence- without dealing with other subjects about which we are still called upon to speculate, no matter how vitally important they may be, and thus diverting our attention from the second of the two main considerations which we were called together to discuss.
It is a terrible thing to realize that five years after the end of the second world war, at a time when we were all beginning to feel that we were returning to something in the nature of a normal life, we are confronted with the dreadful necessity of a vast rearmament program to meet the possible threat of an aggressor. Many people see in this urgent but unpalatable necessity the preliminary stages of a third world war. I have the strongest personal conviction that it can be the very opposite; that the military strength of the free nations may become the firm foundation of a longer period of peace during which the fundamental good sense of human beings everywhere may have time to create better understanding and mutual tolerance among the peoples of nations of widely divergent opinions, in a world which science and fast transportation have made too small for the kind of struggle we can already visualize.
In considering this subject, and in determining what we will do, it is necessary that we face with complete honesty the reality of the weaknesses of the free nations; that, with all the detachment of a surgeon handling his scalpel, we cut deep, remove any evidences of inefficiency, and restore to vigorous health all those organizations which will play their part in the common effort to preserve peace throughout the world.
Never in all history have the democracies been so outnumbered in trained men, weapons and machines of war as they are today. It is necessary that we face the actual arithmetic of that threat so that we may gauge the
The Address-Mr. Drew urgency and the necessity of dealing with the problem which is now before us.
The Russians have at least 175 fully mobilized divisions, of which at least one-third are armoured or mechanized. Russia has under its effective control also many more fully mobilized divisions in Poland under a Russian marshal; in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania, China, and, as we know only too well, in Korea. The ground strength of the axis power in 1939 as compared with that of the democracies was small in comparison with the Russian ground strength of today.
Let us then also examine the figures which have been made public at different times in recent weeks of the strength of the Russian army, navy and air force. The tank strength of these Russian divisions alone is estimated at 40,000. In numbers that is seven times the strength of the United States army, and nearly seven times the .estimated strength of the army of the United Kingdom. Just a short time ago the minister of defence in the United Kingdom estimated the Russian air strength at
19,000	military aircraft, including jet aircraft of the latest design, both fighters and bombers. It may well be that all these are not fully operational, although on the other hand reliable sources have given an even higher figure.
At sea the Russians are building up a large submarine fleet, with the help of the German technicians whom they have absorbed in eastern Germany. Reliable sources estimate the present submarine fleet at not less than 360, with possibly as high as 200 of them being long-range craft capable of high speed both on the surface and under water. It is estimated that some of those submarines are capable of twenty knots an hour, submerged, which would make it possible for them to roam over five times the area which could be covered by submarines of the last war.
These figures apply only to Russia, and do not include any of the satellite countries, some of which have tremendous armament plants. I am thinking of Skoda in Czechoslovakia, which was one of the largest, if not indeed the largest armament plant in Europe. Manning all these tanks, aircraft, submarines, weapons and machines of war are 2,800,000 men now under arms. It is estimated that with mobilization Russia could place between five and a half and six million men under arms within a few months, and raise their effective armed strength to something like 350 divisions.
I have recited these figures because I believe it is wise to place them in comparison with those of the free nations, only to
112	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew emphasize the reality that we must face in considering the problems before us. While our thoughts have been directed- so much toward Korea in these past few months, and while our thoughts will continue to be directed toward Korea and the outcome of events there, we must never divert our thoughts from the great cradle of freedom in our western civilization, where the real issues must perhaps be ultimately decided.
In western Europe today, against some eighty Russian divisions, there are not more than twelve divisions of all the nations of the western union. It is not a picture which should leave any of us with the thought that we can afford to accept anything but absolute certainty in regard to the things we are doing in Canada.
It is against that reality, which we, along with the other free nations, must recognize, that the Minister of National Defence yesterday gave us the easy assurances that he did. The impression he left was that all is well, that there is nothing to be done that is not now being done to prepare for the defence of our homeland and to share the common cause of freedom.
True, we are only a nation of fourteen million people. There is no thought that we stand alone at any time. But with our vast productive power and with the high character and qualities of our people we must prepare for our own defence and our share of the general responsibility for peace in a way which is related to these grim realities. Developments in Korea have emphasized the fact that it is forces in being, ready to be used immediately, which will deter the Russians from other communist aggression and do what it should be the highest purpose of free men anywhere to do-prevent, by every possible means that human skill and human ingenuity can devise, a general war.
When the house was in session last June there was wholehearted acceptance of the decision of the United Nations to deal collectively with the Korean- situation. That decision is not now and has not been in issue. In this general debate I propose to deal with the things which, it seems to me, require to be done to meet the situation which we accept, and the situation we are preparing to meet.
As was stated yesterday by the seconder of the address in reply (Mr. Bennett), events of the past few months have brought to an end the idea of the nuclear concept of a Canadian defence force. Canadians have also learned that we did not have forces in being which were capable of meeting our defence requirements. It is with this knowledge that we must assume responsibility not only for providing additional sums for national


defence, but also, and probably much more important, for ensuring that the money which is spent will be well spent on military organization and munitions suitable for the task we now face as a member of the United Nations, as a member of the North Atlantic security pact, and under our joint arrangements with the commonwealth and the United States. The whole international scene has changed greatly since we last met in June. A new appreciation of our place in the collective system built up by the free nations to stem the tide of communism in the Atlantic area and throughout the world has taken form.
Undoubtedly there had been too great reliance upon the devastating effect of the atom bomb. Now we know that the atom bomb alone is not enough, and that a new pattern of aggression has taken form against which it is not possible to employ this dreadful weapon. On the other hand it can be said with certainty that only the atom bomb is giving the free nations a breathing spell to build up that measure of military strength which can restore and maintain peace throughout the world. The emphasis placed by Russian propaganda upon the banning of the atom bomb is the best evidence that it is still an effective deterrent to Russian arms. One of the things most noticeable to me while in Europe in recent weeks was the extent to which communist propaganda is centring upon banning the atom bomb. Their propaganda is clever and subtle. In France, Italy and elsewhere in Europe, posters designed to affect the thinking of the people in each community emphasize in the simplest possible forms the threat of the atom bomb, and seek to create the impression that this is part of a plan of aggression by the United States against which the people should prepare themselves.
It would be most unwise for us or for people in the other free nations to ignore the fact of this clever, simple and constant propaganda. I recall one simple poster showing a mother carrying her dead baby from the ruins. All that was stated b.elow that harrowing picture was: "Do your part in banning the atom bomb and demanding that the American imperialists do not use it against us or anyone else'\ That, is the kind of propaganda that is being carried on, and among people who have lived through the horrors of two world wars it is not difficult to imagine that some of it is having effect. On the other hand there has been great encouragement in the evidence given by the United Nations that it was in fact an effective instrument to stand in the face of aggression. I am confident that in the end that faith in the United Nations and

the strength of the democracies will overcome the influence of propaganda of the kind to which I have referred.
All of this merely emphasizes that to some extent we are working on borrowed time. Time is of the very essence of peace. It is not only what we do; it is how fast we do it. No one can say how long we can wait for the atom bomb to deter an aggressor, but certain it is that it is better to risk doing too much than to find that we have done too little. On the other hand, as was pointed out yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs we must not burden ourselves to such an extent as to wreck our economy and give the communists one form of victory without direct contact of any kind.
The vital question before us, and the question we must ask ourselves now, is not merely how much we can do, but how quickly we can do it. What we need now are not just plans the completion of which Canada is capable, but the quickest and most effective plans for building up defence. What we must do now is to make use of the resources we possess in the shortest time possible; and in this we can learn from the communists. The pattern of communist logistics is something that has disturbed many of the people living in the free nations. Their armies move with much less in the way of supplies and equipment than our armies require. They have improvised more than we have felt it necessary to do. That applies not only to Russia but also to the forces of the satellite countries which have been engaged in military action, either in civil war or otherwise.
It seems to me that we must be ready to improvise to some extent and to build our forces with what we have now and with what is readily available. We have many trained units in this country; we have the equipment, and it seems that we must adjust our minds to the simplest means of effective employment of what we have, while at the same time making our longer plans as well.
On the other hand it seems that what we must do is to stop talking in percentages. So far as I know, percentages have never won any struggle. It is what we have, it is what we are doing, not what the percentage is of something else. The percentage of the national income, the percentage of the national budget, the percentage of what somebody else is doing, undoubtedly gives some information. It may mean a lot of money, but it does not tell us what we want to know. It is not so much a case of what we can afford to do as it is a case of what we can afford not to do. Free nations can still prevent war. We certainly must not miss the chance we have to prevent it. Time, I say, in all that
The Address-Mr. Drew we do is of the essence of peace. The question is not one of percentages; the question is whether we have what we need. There will be no second chance in our lifetime if we fail.
May I emphasize my belief that in carrying out our new tasks it is imperative that we make every cent in every dollar count. The people of Canada, when they learned to their amazement a short time ago something of what the 'state of our defence forces really was, were disturbed not only by the fact that they were inadequate, but also by the fact that we had spent so much to produce so little.
Let us remember that at no time has this government been restrained from spending what it has requested for the purposes of defence. No government of Canada has had such a free hand in time of peace to prepare whatever defences are necessary. No government of Canada has ever spent anything approaching the sum that this government has spent on defence in years of peace. Since the end of the last war, in the last five years, Canada has spent $1,500 million on defence. The people are asking themselves what has been done with that $1,500 million. It is the responsibility and duty of every hon. member to know what has been done and to make sure that we know a great deal more about the additional expenditures we are being asked to support than we have been permitted to know in the past.
The government has never been asked to stint itself. We have asked that tfle government submit the affairs of the Department of National Defence to examination by a special committee of this house so that not only the expenditures but the organization of our defence forces could be examined in a manner that is regarded as suitable and satisfactory in other great enterprises carried on by this government on behalf of the people of Canada. That is the reason why we have continued to press for a special committee of the house on national defence. If there had been such a committee, all hon. members would have known a great deal more about the real state of our defence forces than we knew up to the time the situation was more fully disclosed a few weeks ago. Now that we are going to be asked to approve greatly increased expenditures of money, in all earnestness I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider the views he has expressed in the past and assure us that he will agree to the appointment of a special committee on national defence.
So far as I can recall, the only reason previously advanced for not appointing such a committee when it has been requested is that it would be contrary to our- established

The Address-Mr. Drew parliamentary procedure, and would be placing in the hands of members of the house the responsibility of government. I have sought to point out on other occasions, and I point out again, that at Westminster, which we still have the habit of describing as the mother of parliaments, they have a subcommittee on defence which has authority to call people before it and to obtain information in regard to expenditures; and since it has authority to inquire into the purpose of expenditures, with that authority goes an opportunity to examine into the organization and other details which necessitate those financial requirements. Even that, however, has not fully satisfied the members of the British House of Commons. I should imagine that most hon. members here would regard Mr. Churchill as possessing parliamentary experience and appreciation of the needs of our parliamentary system at least equal to that possessed by the Minister of National Defence. I say that in no offensive manner at all, but merely to point out that Mr. Churchill has not the same views as to the dangers of committees of this kind that have been expressed so often in this house by the minister. As recently as July 26 Mr. Churchill was discussing the need for .greater information in regard to defence than they are able to obtain through the committee they now have, a committee such as we have been asking for here. In view of the fact that it has been said so often that this would introduce something of the United States method, I think it might be well to place before the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence the views on the United States method expressed in the House of Commons by Mr. Churchill on that occasion. In referring to these congressional committees he said:
These congressional committees, especially those of the House of Representatives, have enormous powers of obtaining information for their members. They can summon generals, admirals, air marshals and other experts before them subject only to the veto of the minister in charge of the department, very rarely exercised, and can examine them to any extent, either in public or in secret.
There is no doubt whatever that the American House of Representatives exercises its responsibilities towards its constituents in a far more vigilant and rigorous manner than anything we have adopted over here. We are a very ill-informed body on defence questions compared to them . . .
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the members of the British House of Commons, including Mr. Churchill, are a very ill-informed body, with the subcommittee on defence which they have, all I can say is that we are denied any information at all which would really make it possible for us to exercise the measure of informed judgment we should be able to

exercise in respect to one of the most important subjects with which we shall ever be called upon to deal.
That being so, in all earnestness I repeat my request that the Prime Minister assure us today that a special committee on defence will be appointed, so that at this critical hour this whole subject may be dealt with on a non-political basis. I am certain that if such a committee is appointed the Prime Minister and all members of this house will find that it will work in harmony and with the one purpose of creating the highest degree of efficiency that can be brought about in our defence organization with such expenditures as may be made available by the members of this parliament. Recognizing how little the members of this house have been permitted to learn-and most certainly the statement of the Minister of National Defence yesterday added nothing to our information-I would go further and suggest that this committee should meet immediately, and that instead of this special session proroguing it should adjourn and come back to hear a report by that special committee on national defence at the earliest possible day.
Another reason why such a committee should be permitted to exercise the fullest measure of supervision over expenditures now being made, and over the additional expenditures we shall be asked to approve, is that the rapidly mounting cost of living and the inflation taking place before our eyes are causing concern to all Canadians, not only in the daily problems of their home lives but in the way they are threatening the effectiveness of our defence effort. As the dollar decreases in actual value through inflation, and as the increasing cost of living places new pressure on our whole domestic economy, it is certain that with the dollars we have we become less capable of performing the great tasks that are before us. As was very properly said yesterday by both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, in the struggle in which we are engaged it is essential not only that we prepare to defend ourselves by military force, but also that we preserve the security of the home life and the confidence of the people in our democratic system, which is just as essential a part of the victory over communism as the actual restraint of military aggression.
The danger of this inflation became apparent the moment the government found it necessary to make great expenditures to meet new military demands and to acquire supplies of various kinds. Government spending added to ordinary spending is always bound

to create inflationary pressures. As new demands are made for government expenditure to meet the increasing gravity of the situation, those pressures will increase. Steps could have been taken by the government, within their powers, to meet in some degree those pressures which were created. Steps should have been taken. Steps certainly should be taken now.
One of the difficulties with which we are confronted at the moment in discussing those steps is that we have not had placed before us a statement as to what the government is or is not prepared to do. In fact, in answer to a question just before the orders of the day were called it was indicated that the Prime Minister was not yet ready to inform the house whether or not certain steps would be taken; and that applies to any of the many steps which might be taken in a situation of this kind. For that reason it undoubtedly will be more satisfactory to defer further discussion of this subject until we have that information. I do urge the Prime Minister to tell us this afternoon what plans the government has to deal with this situation, which will become more threatening as greater government expenditure increases the pressures which already exist.
We know there are great difficulties, and I assure the Prime Minister and the members of the government that we are anxious to co-operate in every way we can in meeting a situation which is going to affect the daily life of every Canadian for years to come. We shall be able to co-operate only to the extent that we can base our remarks upon an actual knowledge of what is contemplated. The protection of our economy is part and parcel of the struggle in which we are engaged here, and in which the other democracies are engaged as well. In this case the fullest information will, I am sure, find a ready response. I am certain that it will be the basis upon which we can close our ranks and present a united front in regard to those things which are of such concern in every Canadian home today.
The last thing that we Canadians can afford is war. War can be prevented. The atom bomb is giving us the breathing spell. The United States, with its enormous industrial resources, is not alone. We have industrial resources out of all proportion to our population, as compared with other nations throughout the world. The United Kingdom has great skill and tremendous industrial resources, as have the other countries with whom we are associated in this common purpose. With that breathing spell, the combined
The Address-Mr. Drew strength of the free nations can preserve the peace which is the first consideration of every Canadian. I have very great hope today; for the first time in our history we have seen the free nations of the world joined in giving a positive undertaking that collectively they will resist aggression anywhere against the nations with which they are associated. It may well be that if we in this country, with all the energy, all the ability and skill we possess, do what we can with the utmost speed, the dark clouds in which we are now enveloped will pass, to reveal the brightest days yet known to mankind.
It is my purpose to move an amendment so that there may be discussion of certain steps. I have already indicated that, with nothing more than a bare indication of the two steps, it is difficult to discuss much of the detail now. We shall have the appropriation bill, and with the indications in that bill we shall be able to discuss, under the various headings, the proposals that are made. It is my intention to reserve the discussion of those steps until then. There will undoubtedly be other measures, further information as to which will be extremely helpful if the Prime Minister will give it to the house today.
There was some discussion earlier about whether the house should sit at eleven o'clock in the morning, as well as at three and at eight. I feel sure, that every member here wants to complete the business of this session as quickly as possible in the interests of the people of Canada. But the longer the information about the things we shall be called upon to consider is delayed, the more difficult it will be to give adequate consideration to those matters if we sit practically the whole day. Under our parliamentary system it is extremely important that, when a completely new proposal is placed before the house, those associated in the different parties in this house have an opportunity of meeting and discussing it. It is for that reason, and in the interests of the expeditious completion of the business of this special session, that it will be helpful if we have the greatest detail at the earliest possible moment.
I have said that I have great hope. I believe that hope on my part was increased through some of the contacts I had within the past few weeks. The spirit of the people of Britain today is remarkably good. So is the spirit in France and in Italy. I believe that is true of the spirit of the people throughout the whole of western Europe, as a result of the evidence that has been given of firm collective action to deal with aggression. If we can cast our eyes beyond the

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent immediate future, then we can undertake our task with a high heart. I like to feel that the sentiments of those who now face the future were well expressed in the words of a poem written during the first world war by Owen Seaman. Many of you will remember these lines; to me they express the sentiment that each one of us could hold at this time:
Ye that have faith to look with fearless eyes Beyond the tragedy of a world at strife,
And trust that out of night and death shall rise The dawn of ampler life;
Rejoice, whatever anguish rend your heart,
That God has given you for a priceless dower,
To live in these great times and have your part In Freedom's crowning hour.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we may well be coming to freedom's crowning hour. It is with the idea of laying a foundation for that discussion which will call for an examination of our own affairs, under our democratic system, that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the following words be added to the address: "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."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this house I have listened with much interest to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). As a Canadian I have listened to it with pride as well, b'ecause of the high tone of the remarks which he has addressed to this assembly and because of the evident desire of the hon. gentleman that all Canadians, regardless of party, do take heart in this new situation which unites the free peoples of the world in standing together against aggression and for the preservation of all they hold dear.
I have just received the terms of the amendment which the hon. gentleman has seen fit to place before the house. The amendment raises a question which I think is important for the people of Canada. It is important for their representatives to consider it seriously and it is proper that they should make a decision upon it. The amendment states that His 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.
Those are matters which are of grave concern to the people of Canada; and were it true that His Excellency's advisers had failed in their duty in that respect, such pronouncement should be made against them and they should be dismissed from office. That no one can gainsay. But the question 
arises: have they or have they not failed in the respects mentioned in this amendment?
There is no doubt that when this new Korean situation arose there were not in Canada any forces in being ready to cope with it. That is something which we frankly admit, but we do not admit that it constitutes failure of His Excellency's advisers to provide adequately for the defence of Canada. In the London Times of recent date I read with some interest quite an accurate account of the developments in that respect. I was glad to note that in that account the people of the United Kingdom were toeing informed through that great newspaper that as early as 1946 the representatives of Canada in the general assembly of the United Nations had been urging that the provisions made in the San Francisco charter be implemented, and that we in Canada be informed of the part we would be expected to take in any united action by the United Nations to prevent or to put down aggression; and that, because of the attitude of one of the permanent members of the security council and because of the fact that the security council was the agency which, under the charter, had been given primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace, it was never possible to make that progress.
The report then goes on to say that, in that situation, plans were made by Canada with its neighbours to the south to prepare for' the immediate defence of the North American continent; that at the same time efforts were made to bring about a union of those free nations who would act together for their respective protection; and that under those plans there was organized in Canada a system whereby we had a competent, highly-trained, mobile, airborne force that was going to take its part in continental defence and a system whereby we were training large numbers of competent officers and organizing an establishment which could be rapidly expanded in the event of general war.
But the Korean situation presented a new and different situation to the members of the United Nations, and a fortuitous one; because had it not been for the walkout from the security council months before of the representative of one of the great powers, there could have been no effective action by the security council, when armed aggression took place in Korea. That member would certainly not have allowed the resolution adopted at that moment to pass, without the exercise of his nation's veto that has been so frequently exercised to frustrate international action. Had it not been for that circumstance and the splendid international leadership given by the United States of America to the freedom-loving nations of the organization, we would

not have had that which I hope' will be a demonstration that the freedom-loving nations, through and under the charter of the United Nations, are capable of acting together to prevent and to put down aggression and threats to peace.
I- was comforted by the optimistic prospects held out by the leader of the opposition. I hope and feel as he does that we may be not far from the dawn of an era of lasting peace. I read in a recent dispatch that a diplomat of great experience had said that the prospects of a decade of peace were brighter now than they had been at any time since the outbreak of this cold war. But some other had added: "provided we get through the next decade of months without war." I am inclined to think that there is a lot of truth in that reservation. The free nations of the world are now undergoing a test which may be a very vital one. And when they do-as I hope and feel confident that they will, within the next ten months-demonstrate that united action- by them can be effective to put down aggression, I think that we can look forward then, with the confident expectations implied in the. speech of the. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), to a long period of absence of war, if not full peace, because there cannot be full peace for us when we are in the throes of a nerve-wracking cold war.
I am not going to attempt to gainsay anything that the leader of the opposition said about the fact that we are living on borrowed time. That is probably to be attributed to the knowledge of the possession of and the fear of the use of the atomic bomb. I think that all would agree with him that those who are now aggressors in Asia have developed a form of aggression designed to be effective under conditions where the question of use of the atomic bomb does not arise, and that that new situation must be met.
His Excellency's advisers have done what they thought it was proper to do, namely, recommended to parliament what they think it is proper to recommend, so that Canada may do its part in the United Nations, action of another form to prevent the success of that other form of aggression against their freedom and their institutions. It will be for the people, through their representatives in this house, to say whether they believe or do not believe that His Excellency's advisers have failed in that respect.
The situation, the background, was described in a manner yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr, Pearson) which I think impressed us all. For his colleagues in the cabinet it was not a new impression, because the information which he placed before the house yesterday
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent had been constantly, as circumstances developed, placed, before us as the background for the decisions and recommendations which we had to make.
We agree with the leader of the opposition that what is necessary at this time is not so much to determine how much we can do, but how quickly we can act effectively, and add effectively to the forces the United Nations will require to make the demonstration that this new form of aggression is not and cannbt succeed against them. For that reason His Excellency's advisers recommended that there be established as rapidly as could be done a special brigade, -not earmarked only for implementation of Canada's obligations as one of the United Nations, or as one of the North Atlantic treaty nations, but earmarked specially for service in that domain. Hon. members will have to decide whether or not we set about it vigorously enough, whether or not it was a proper measure to take at that time, and whether it is to be realized as quickly as circumstances make it possible to realize it.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) gave the figures of the enlistments that had been made by the young men of Canada for the organization and completion of that force. And if it is not proceeded with rapidly enough in the opinion of hon. members it will not be through any failure of response from the young men of Canada who are being called upon to serve with efficiency, devotion and heroism in that force.
The leader of the opposition says that Russia and its satellites improvise and that we must improvise and make the best and most expeditious use of the resources at our disposal. It will be for hon. members to say whether we are doing that. I recognize the obligation, I recognize the responsibility, but I feel confident that we will satisfy the people's representatives in this house that that responsibility has been and is being fully discharged.
Again the hon. member referred to the matter which he raised at the last session of parliament, namely, the establishment of a committee on national defence; and he referred to a recent speech made by Mr. Churchill, commenting upon the manner in which the committee of the house of representatives of the United States obtains information and exercises influence on defence policies in that country. I have great respect and great admiration for Mr. Churchill, but I think that we in Canada perhaps read more closely the United States' and our own newspapers, and I would be surprised if the Canadian people were very favourably impressed

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent with the reports of some of the sittings of the committees of the house of representatives of the United States. I think it would be shocking to Canadians if at any moment the Minister of National Defence appeared before one of our committees, looked around and said: "Well, are there no spies from the Department of External Affairs in this committee to spy out what I am going to say?" I do not want to be critical of the system of any friendly nation. But I would say that the members of the government of Canada constitute what is in essence a defence committee of this House of Commons, and that each of them realizes his responsibility as a member of that committee. I feel that when the members of that committee have formulated recommendations, there is no reason to exclude from the consideration and examination of those representations any hon. member of this house. That is our system. We bring the recommendations here. All hon. members of the house are members of the committee that exists to represent the Canadian people, to scrutinize those recommendations and to make sure, each one taking his own individual responsibility, that they constitute the proper way of discharging the obligations of the parliament of Canada to the people of Canada.
The hon. member has said that since June the situation has changed-and it has changed. In June last, and prior to that time, the question before the house was whether the general policy being followed by the Department of National Defence to set up the organization that would be the best possible organization to carry out our share in the territorial defence of the North American continent, either on land, in the air or on the sea, was the proper organization to have, and whether we were or were not, as rapidly as circumstances permitted, doing our share toward the joint armament of the North Atlantic treaty nations so as to be in a position to resist, together, any aggression against any one of them.
At the present time a new situation has developed. As a consequence of this unexpected situation, it gives an opportunity to the United Nations as such to make together and within the terms of the charter a demonstration of their willingness and of their capacity to make the charter work in that respect, and to put down local aggression and remove threats to peace. That was something which none of the members of the United Nations had anticipated.
It so happened that there were in the immediate vicinity land forces of the United States of America. They were there because of the obligation they had accepted at the


cessation of hostilities against Japan. They were the only ground troops available to render immediate assistance to the arms of the South Koreans themselves, and they have done it in such a magnificent and heroic manner that it makes it, I think, all the more encouraging for other members of the United Nations to follow under their leadership.
All the other nations were in a situation similar to our own. It so happened that the United Kingdom had troops in Hong Kong, which were there for another purpose, and which within the last few days are being added to the forces of the United States and will be replaced in Hong Kong by troops to be brought from elsewhere.
There may be some little difference in the time required for each nation to put itself in a position to meet an unexpected and unforeseen situation. Members of parliament will have it as their responsibility to say if the time we are taking is longer than it should be. If that is their conclusion they will be obliged, by their responsibilities to their constituents, to say so by their votes.
I do not think they will find that that is the situation at all, and I do not think they will be able to agree with the suggestion in the amendment, that His Excellency's advisers have failed to provide adequately for the defence of Canada.
Prices have been going up. Prices have been going up all over the world. I do not think there is any country in the world which has not had a greater degree of inflation than this portion of the North American continent, from the gulf of Mexico to the North pole. But there has been inflation here as well as elsewhere. It was asserted to me, in a conversation which was designed to give me the kind of advice that one having the responsibilities of the office I occupy should get, that of course no nation could expect to get away with a lesser degree of inflation than that which might develop in the United States, but that it was extremely important to do all that should be done and to avoid anything that should be avoided to the end that our inflation might not be greater than that which took place south of the border. So far it has not outrun anything that has taken place south of the border.
It might. It would be disastrous if it did. It would be calamitous if it did; and we certainly must do everything within the ingenuity of man to prevent it. The pressures are not going to be substantially increased by the expenditures now contemplated. We must realize that the amount of capital investment going on in our country is of the order of several	billions-several	billions being

expended each year for the improvement of plants and permanent services required for the development of the resources of this young nation. And what is going to be required for armament for ourselves or for our neighbours has got to come out of our production. Our production will either have to be increased or it will have to be diverted to the degree that a portion of it will be required for the purposes of armament.
But in any event it could not be of the order of ten per cent of what is now being used for capital development; and the pressures that could result from, the diversion of something less than ten per cent from that which goes into capital development would not, I feel confident, add anything substantial to the other pressures on prices of commodities and services.
Nevertheless that is a matter which the representatives of the people must carefully examine. If they come to the conclusion that we have failed or are failing to do anything which would be of substantial benefit to prevent further inflation or greater increases in the cost of living, it will be their responsibility to agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I am confident that they will not come to any such conclusion.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) asked if I could not at this time give some further information about the government's plans. I shall not be able to give positive information but I can give some negative information. I can say to the house at this time that we are not planning at this session to ask parliament for any enabling legislation which would empower us to impose a general system of controls on wages and prices. That we are not proposing to do at this time. That is something which normally is in the field of provincial jurisdiction. We have not convinced ourselves that in a general way the situation is such as to justify us to attempt to displace provincial jurisdiction in those regards.
There are certain other measures which the Department of Justice has been considering, and I think that that consideration is just about completed, as to whether, without any general invasion of the jurisdiction given by the constitution to the provinces, some measures of an anti-inflationary character could be justified. Just as soon as the matter can be completed, and it may be within hours or within days, it will be announced and parliament will have to say whether we have been diligent, whether we have proceeded with the required diligence to meet the situation.
We have heard reproaches such as those that are contained or implied in this motion.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent On a great many occasions we have had to meet the charge of not fulfilling properly our responsibilities to the Canadian people. When that question has been put to the Canadian people it has been considered carefully and the answer is now reflected by those who have come here to represent them in the House of Commons. The present situation is very much the same, although it might appear to be more critical than it has been at times in the past. The conduct of His Excellency's advisers will have to be judged by the same rigorous standards and I feel confident that it will receive the same measure of approval that it has received in the past.


Mr. Fleming:: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, yes, half a dozen if the hon. member wishes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is only one. I should like to ask if any measures are to be introduced at this session that will have to do with communists in Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not intended at this time to ask parliament to enact any repressive measures directed against those misguided and, I am glad to say, rather few communists that we have in Canada. We still believe that it is better to meet them and fight them above ground than it is to have them burrow underground.
I am sure that the leader of the opposition is sincere in his desire to co-operate and I welcome that assurance. I feel, as he does, that the situation will require the greatest efforts that all good Canadians can put forth. We must all do our part so that we may have in this country that confident feeling which he found in the United Kingdom, in France and in Italy and so that there may persist among the peoples of all the free nations the impression that at last there is something of an international character that is working and that will work and that will assure to us all those prospects which the leader of the opposition so eloquently delineated in his address.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I join with all those who have already congratulated the mover and seconder of the address. I was happy indeed to hear the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett) make his maiden speech yesterday and I congratulate him upon the manner of its delivery as well as upon its subject matter. The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) has spoken in the house on several occasions but he certainly enhanced his reputation as a speaker and parliamentarian when he spoke yesterday.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
I am sorry that we are having a debate on the address of the description we are having at the present time. It is rather difficult to deal with many of the problems that need to be discussed at this time in a debate which was introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minis' ter of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I think that fact has tended to narrow the scope of our discussions in a manner which is rather regrettable. However, as time goes on we may find that the debate has been enlarged considerably and it may be that, contrary to the government's expectation, the adjournment or prorogation of the house will be delayed. I hope that that will not occur.
I listened with a great deal of interest yesterday to the speeches of the minister of external affairs and the Minister of National Defence. I was particularly interested in what the minister of external affairs had to say regarding the international situation. I am sure that there is no difference of opinion as to the gravity of the international situation or as to Canada's determination to play her part as a member of the United Nations in preventing aggression and removing the dangers of war, we hope permanently in the future.
As I sat here this afternoon I looked back over the years since I have been here, the years that led up to 1938 when there was aggression by the Japanese in Manchuria, aggression by Mussolini against the Ethiopians and the situation which developed in Spain with the intervention of the dictatorships of Germany and Italy and eventually intervention also on the part of the Soviet union. All these events culminated with the Munich agreement.
I felt that if perchance the league of nations had been organized as the United Nations is organized today the aggression might have been stopped at one or other of those early points and the terrible war which came upon us in 1939 prevented. I say, "might have been" advisedly because no one can tell what might have happened. May I say that throughout all those years I believed that the league of nations should have had a police force behind it to enforce international decisions for the maintenance of peace. However throughout those years I shared with many people a growing disillusionment as it appeared that the term "collective security" was nothing but a catch phrase, and that we could not rely either upon the statesmanship of the leaders of the great democratic nations or indeed upon the one instrument we had built up over those years and that failed us so badly. Perhaps I should not say the league 
of nations failed us so badly, because after all it was the statesmen of the world who failed the great ideal which lay behind the league of nations.
Now we have set up another world organization. I had the great privilege of seeing the birth of the United Nations at San Francisco. I shared with the delegates of at least all the democratic nations present the idea that we were building a foundation which in time would provide the peoples of the world with a structure under which they might find shelter and eventually universal peace. But here we are, only five years later, engaged as a country not in a war in the usual sense but at least preparing to take part in police action in Asia in order to drive back those who have acted as aggressors against a nation recognized and indeed established by the United Nations Organization.
I think we would be well advised to remember that perhaps the most striking statement on this situation was made, not by a European statesman but by the leader of a great Asiatic people, Pandit Nehru of India. I believe we should keep that statement not only before ourselves but before the public. In the mail this morning I received eleven letters, I think signed by people who had gathered together, though of that I am not sure, sent by special delivery and urging me to support Pandit Nehru. Well, in what we have done up to the present time I believe we have supported the statement on the Korean situation by Pandit Nehru. I am not going to quote from any newspaper, capitalist, socialist or otherwise.
I am going to quote the official India information service, circulated by the high commissioner of India from 121 Slater street in this city. This is a special release on the conference granted to the press of India by Pandit Nehru who had this to say on the Korean situation:
When North Korea launched the invasion on South Korea it became evident from all information available that this was a large-scale, well-planned invasion. The border conflicts between the two countries as well as the internal conflicts had a bearing on the situation. But they were dominated by this major fact of a well-planned invasion and aggression on South Korea. In the delicate and precarious balance existing in the world, any such invasion and aggression was fraught with the most dangerous possibilities. If aggression was allowed to proceed and to succeed then the structure of the United Nations would have inevitably collapsed and a large scale war would have resulted. The whole basis of the United Nations is to bring about settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. If aggression takes place and the aggressor ignores the United Nations completely then only two choices are left:	Either the United Nations should
condemn that aggression and try to put an end to it or it should come to the conclusion that it has ceased to be an effective instrument of peace and leave the decision of any dispute to war.
Thus in the context of events the security council had no alternative but to declare North Korea as

aggressor and subsequently call upon the members of the United Nations to meet this armed attack and restore international peace. Whatever justification might be advanced for this aggression, and whatever might have preceded it, may have some importance, but it does not take away from the fact of a well-planned aggression.
Throughout the world I am sure there is a universal desire for peace, shared by the peoples of Asia, Europe and indeed of all continents. The world cries aloud for peace. What we could do if instead of having to divert millions and indeed billions of dollars to preparations for defence and perhaps ultimately expenditures on war! We could utilize these vast resources to build up a world society in which all men could look forward to decent standards of living and measures of security. Yet I suppose that never in the history of our time has the world felt more insecure than at present. A few moments ago the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to the atomic bomb. I have no doubt that people throughout the world fear that one day this fell weapon may be used again to blot out large portions of the population of some countries. Let me say once more that we believe atomic energy should be completely under international control, and that, under the United Nations, provision should be made for adequate, constant and unrestricted inspection of all plants producing fissionable material. Of course that is where we disagree with the Soviet union, which will not agree to a comprehensive system of inspection but, on the contrary, is prepared to agree to inspection only to a limited and inadequate extent.
We believe we must continue to support collective security because Canada is a small nation, with a population of fourteen million people inhabiting the northern half of a great continent. We cannot hope to remain at peace if we rely only upon ourselves for defence, so we must participate in measures of collective security to the fullest extent of our power and resources. I think, however, we can offer a criticism of the government on the manner in which it handled the Korean situation. If we look over the record we find that on July 12 Dean Acheson stated to the world that offers of ground troops would be very helpful. Two days later the Secretary General of the United Nations telegraphed all the member countries an urgent appeal for ground troops to assist in putting the aggressors in Korea back beyond the 38th parallel. Six nations did reply immediately. They were members, in part, of the commonwealth of nations with which we are associated: Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand. In addition, there were Turkey, Bolivia and Thailand.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
The point I am making in criticism of the government is that when that occurred I thought and I said that parliament should have been called immediately to make provision for our participation in assisting the United Nations forces in driving back the aggressor in Korea. It was not until August 7, almost a month after the first call, that the Prime Minister announced that a special United Nations brigade would be recruited and that parliament would meet in the course of the next six or seven weeks which would have brought us to the end of September. Parliament, because of another grave matter, met in the meantime, and we can now discuss the problem of assistance to the United Nations as well as the problem of our own defence.
I am certain that the vast majority of the Canadian people are ready and willing to assist the United Nations in bringing a speedy end to the aggression in Korea. May I add that I believe the bringing of this aggression to a speedy end is of vital importance to the whole world. If there is a prolonged fight in Korea I fear the United Nations Organization may lose the confidence of some of the smaller nations who may think of their own country being subjected to aggression, and only after devastation and a prolonged fight restored to independence and peace. Consequently I am of the opinion that the sooner effective help can be given to the United Nations forces in the present circumstances, the better it will be for the peace of the world and for the United Nations Organization.
The international crisis created by aggression in Korea enabled the people of Canada to show a large measure of unity. I believe that all parties in this house are now pledged to support the principle of collective action, collective security, and all that is implied in those terms. So far as we are concerned, as we said at the time, we welcome the prompt action of the security council in connection with this matter. We believe that the police action necessary must not be left to one nation, or even mainly to one nation. The danger is very great that if the whole campaign is dominated by, we will say, the United States, it does give an opportunity to the communist propagandists to present this police action to the nations of the world, and particularly to the nations of Asia, as American imperialism. Of course that statement is absurd on the face of it because of the manner in which the present situation arose, and the manner in which all the non-communist nations of the world have co-operated in supporting police action to stop the aggression. Nonetheless the active parti-

The Address-Mr. Coldwell cipation of many nations is necessary in order to demonstrate to the people of the world, and to the people of Asia, that this is not an American engagement, but is indeed a United Nations police action supported by members of the United Nations everywhere and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations charter.
May I suggest to the government that once again we should do what Canada did at the United Nations assembly in 1946 when the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) led our delegation, of which I had the honour of being a member, namely, to demand that the military staffs of the great powers, as provided by the charter, should meet to fulfil the intention of the charter, and to bring about a real collective security force for the security council. I know it may be said immediately, "but Russia is one of the five great powers; there would be difficulties in that respect". That is true. I do not know how long the other nations of the world can continue to allow the will of the vast majority of nations to be thwarted by one nation. If it is impossible to gather together the general staffs of all the great powers on the security council then the general staffs of the powers that will join together for real collective security should be called to meet.
May I say then that the goal in Korea at the moment is the defeat of the aggressor. But that should not be the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal of the United Nations is to promote in Korea the emergence of a free, democratic and united nation. This means doing something we have failed to do hitherto. I am not going to quote from articles that have been written by men who have no sympathy for communist ideas, and which have appeared in reputable papers such as the Manchester Guardian. One of the things we have failed to do, both in Korea and elsewhere in Asia-I think the minister of external affairs implied this clearly yesterday-is to devise a policy that will win the support of the peasants and workers; the people who have been exploited and are still being exploited by the governments of those backward countries. I think that, unfortunately, we have not yet placed the economic and social aims of the United Nations action in Korea in the manner in which those aims should have been formulated and placed before the world.
Two or three weeks ago I listened one evening to a broadcast, which was a rebroadcast over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stations from the Mutual Broadcasting system of the United States, in which a number of so-called experts on this side of the Pacific ocean spoke to various war correspondents in Japan. I listened with a great deal of interest to a Canadian voice because

it was a good one, that of Mr. J. B. McGeachy, speaking from Toronto. The question that he asked several times was this:	What are the
war aims in Korea? What are you telling the people of Korea? The only reply he could get was that we were aiming to achieve certain military objectives. I knew, of course, that that was not what Mr. McGeachy was really asking. Unless we can say to the people of these Asiatic countries that we are going to deliver them from the oppression of the land owner, that the peasant is going to get the land so that he can make a living on it and be secure on it; that the coolie is not going to be exploited by the industrialist; or that the ordinary common man in those countries is not going to be oppressed by war lords and by other people of that type, we are not going to be successful in winning ultimately the victory over communist propaganda and communist aggression in Asiatic countries.
I deplore the fact that we have failed to place before the Asiatic peoples the promise *-and not only the promise but something in a material way to show that we mean that promise-to improve their position. We have said-and I repeat it this afternoon-that we believe that the only secure basis for peace in the world can be found in economic planning of the world's resources. That does not mean planning under one great authority, but on a regional basis and in a manner that will enable all the people of the world to develop their resources and to enjoy a better standard of living. Effective assistance to raise the living standards everywhere and a real program to increase the productivity of nations backward in technological experience, in mechanization and so on, in Asia, Africa, South America and elsewhere is the only way in which we shall achieve permanent peace in the world. It is no good to say that our aim is to contain communism or to prevent its spread unless we do something really effective to prevent that spread. The hungry peoples of the world are not interested in democratic ideals or in democratic systems of government and all the rest of it; but they are interested in food and in economic progress. I therefore say that the purpose of our country, and of other countries like this one, should be to devise ways and means of providing them with the means to progress, not only because it is our moral duty to do so but because it is to our self-interest to put it on the lowest possible level.
We have, of course, watched what has happened over the years, and I am not wholly critical because some good things have been done. Important steps have been taken in that direction. We have the success of the Marshall plan in rebuilding the European economy; the recent decision of the

Atlantic pact nations to increase their economic co-operation, and I hope that that decision will be put into effect; the adherence of the United States and Canada to the organization for European co-operation; the international wheat agreement; and the work generally of the economic commission of the United Nations. These are all good examples of international co-operation-among the western democratic powers, I should add- and on a scale that the world has never before seen.
All I am saying is that we must continue that kind of thing and must do much more than we have already done. I am afraid that we have been somewhat content to pay lip service to these matters without giving sufficient reality to them. Even yesterday, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), in that excellent address he gave to the house, was speaking along those very lines, I thought: We have heard the same thing so often from the government and from ministers of external affairs, that this is what we should do. But when we look at our present proposals, what are they as far as we can get them from the government today? To do all that we can to defeat the aggression in Korea; to spend another $150 million on defence; and if I understood the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) aright yesterday, in his illuminating address, all I can say is that we are going to spend perhaps several hundred millions of dollars in the provision of armaments for the western European countries. Probably that is all very necessary. But what are we going to do to help to raise the standards of living of the depressed peoples of the world in order that we may defeat communist propaganda which can flourish only where there is poverty, misery and want? That is the point that always strikes me. We do all these other things. We are prepared to spend millions and millions of dollars on armaments and so on, and we must spend them. But what comparable action are we going to take in order to do the essential things that everybody tells us must be done, namely to assist as rapidly as we can in feeding and in raising the standards of living among the depressed peoples of Asia?
I listened to Dr. Kagawa, the great Japanese Christian who has played so important a part since the war in encouraging democratic organizations in Japan and who was a member of the government of Japan for some time since the war. What I have just said was the message that he gave to the Christian churches of Canada when he was here three or four weeks ago. In effect he said that if the western nations had done for the peasants
The Address-Mr. Caldwell of southern Korea what they might have done and should have done-and incidentally what he said they did in Japan with regard to land-we would have had support from the peasants of Korea and perchance would not have been in the great difficulty we are in with regard to this war today. I therefore say that we must consider more than the military aspects of the present situation. I know that point has been emphasized by a good many people but we must heed and make that emphasis as a nation.
I have a few quotations, one or two of which are worth putting on the record; I cannot put them all on. I notice that Herbert Morrison, lord president of the council in the United Kingdom, speaking at Manchester a few days after this aggression occurred, on July 2, 1950, said this:
While armed opposition is necessary in reply to armed aggression, the path we and other like-thinking people must follow is in removing the causes of communism, by alleviating the malnutrition and misery that affects so many millions of people, particularly throughout Asia.
And then the other day, at the conference at Lake Couchiching in this province, the secretary to the Indian High Commissioner in Canada, Mr. Banerjee, said this:
What is wanted is immediate action on a war basis in overcoming the poverty of Asia. In Korea the United Nations did not hesitate to take immediate action against the aggression. Similar immediate action on a war footing should be taken against poverty, disease, illiteracy.
Note the emphasis "on a war footing".
At the Colombo conference that my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), attended, the official communique of January 14, 1950, said much the same thing. The communique read as follows:
It was recognized that, in the changing conditions brought about by recent developments in this area, progress depends mainly on the improvement of economic conditions. The conference was impressed by the magnitude of the contribution which the success of progressive policies in this area could make to the peace and prosperity of the world.
We give lip service to such fine sentiments, but we do very little beyond that.
However, I want to refer to some other matters, and I must do so briefly because my time is rapidly running out. First, in regard to our own defence situation, once again I am going to put before the house what we have so often said, and what indeed other hon. members in other parties have said from time to time, but which incidentally their parties when in power have not carried out. We are alarmed at the profiteering in the production of munitions of war. In the last session we did condemn the removal of the 5 per cent profit limit on the production or sale of war

The Address-Mr. Coldwell supplies in this country in connection with our present defence program. Since we are going to spend $150 million more on our defence and several hundred millions in the provision of supplies for western Europe, we believe at this session we should consider the nationalization of the production-not necessarily the industry at this present session- and the sale of armaments and munitions. We certainly should re-impose the excess profits tax to deal both with the excess profits that may be made in war industry or out of the present inflationary situation, I might add; and may I also say that I believe the time has long since passed when a tax should be imposed on an undue increase in the value of capital assets. Moreover, we need action to stop the rising cost of living. We believe that that can only be done by re-introduction of beneficial price controls and necessary subsidies on at least the necessities of life.
May I say how thoroughly I agreed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he said that there must be no halt to our own social progress. If we wish to get the Canadian people behind the great effort for defence, and in the event of war behind the great war effort that this country might have to make, then there must be no diminution in the social services already established. Moreover, the promise implied in the recommendations, for example, of the old age pension committee of last June should be carried out in spite of the expenditures we must face in connection with our rearmament program.
In order to get our view more completely before the house, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move a subamendment to the amendment made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). 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.
We wish to add the following words:
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.
An economic policy to meet the needs of the Canadian people at this time is essential. We have seen the prices of basic foods rise in a spectacular manner. The Prime Minister says that after all we live beside the United States and that our level of inflation has not gone


beyond the level of inflation in the United States, so he proposes to do nothing about it now. But I want to point out that until we made the over-hasty withdrawal of beneficial controls and subsidies our price level in this country was very much lower than the price level in the United States. Now we see it not only catching up but being in danger in some respects even of passing beyond the price level that the United States inflation has brought about in that country.
In the last day or so in this city the price of a loaf of bread has been increased by one cent. The cost of milk increased by one cent a quart this morning. I am not saying that the farmers do not need the extra cent a quart for their milk, but I am saying that the greatly increased cost of production that the farmers have to bear is reflected in the prices that the consumers have to pay; and that if we had beneficial controls, or if we had the kind of subsidy we had on commodities of this description during the war, we could retain a price level that would enable mothers of families to purchase supplies of food that are essential to the future welfare of this country, because the children of the nation are the greatest and best assets that we have. Therefore I am pointing this out. We need the continuance of rent control, particularly in a city such as Ottawa where we have people coming in on account of our defence program. I know of young army officers-in fact I lived near one until a few days ago at a summer cottage. He does not know now, after waiting all summer, where he will put his wife and family in the coming winter months. He cannot buy a house, not I presume because of inflated prices but because of the very nature of his work. He does not know how long he will be posted to the city of Ottawa. There are many others in the same circumstances in this city and elsewhere at this time.
We need effective action to halt price-fixing and other restrictive practices by monopolies and combines. A few days ago we were discussing a strike in the house, and we were complaining because the men were seeking an increase in wages. They had fulfilled every part of our law in doing it, and finally they came to the regrettable decision, regrettable to all of us, no matter what were our points of view on the strike, and a strike occurred. But before they came to that conclusion they had to take certain legal steps. It seems to me the time has come when we should not allow any monopoly or industry to set prices without having to show, if called upon, that the prices they set are fair and reasonable. For example, we see the prices of tires taking two jumps in a few days; yet
12b

we are told that the Polymer plant has plenty of rubber available, and we know that rubber is still coming in from the Malay peninsula.
I say that to prevent regrettable strikes such as the one we had lately, there should be consultation with trade union representatives to devise an over-all wage program which will permit more effective action in holding the price line, while assuring workers a fair and adequate standard of living and income. We did that pretty effectively during the war; why can we not attempt to do something of the kind now?
I have had to deal briefly with these matters at the conclusion of my address so as to bring them before the house, although I had wanted to elaborate to a greater extent than I have been able to do. After all our attention has been taken with the war situation in Korea. May I say before I take my seat how pleased I was yesterday when the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in discussing the Korean situation, made it abundantly clear that Canada was participating in the United Nations action in Korea, and that we were in no way involved in the Formosan situation. I said some time ago, and I now repeat, that the only thing to do-and it should have been done long ago-is to say to Chiang Kai-shek, "Get out of Formosa and stay out of Formosa", so as ultimately to give the Formosan people an opportunity to choose their own form of government

because they were once a free and independent people, and not so many decades ago at that.
I cannot go into that phase of the matter further except to say that the minister has the support at least of this group in the house in the attitude he has expressed from time to time in connection with Formosa, and the difficulties that have arisen in connection with it.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have put before the house today not only my own opinions but, since we have just held a national convention, the considered opinions of the movement for which at this moment I have the honour to be spokesman in this debate.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I see the hour is approaching six o'clock, but I should like to go on at this time so as not to delay the house in any way. I was wondering whether, when the hand of the clock moves around to number 12, Your Honour would turn a blind eye, because if I were given the opportunity I believe I could finish in a few brief moments after the normal recess hour. Otherwise it would be necessary to split what I have to say. I shall be prepared to follow whatever direction Your Honour will give me in the matter.
The Address-Mr. Low


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Solon Earl Low: At the outset of my remarks may I offer the traditional compliments to the mover and seconder on their most excellent addresses delivered in the house yesterday. Both these young men gave promise in their speeches, and I would compliment specially the hon. member who seconded the address, because this was his maiden speech.
The speeches yesterday of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) indicated plainly that in the days ahead Canada faces perhaps the most serious situation in her history. It is true that this country is not at war with any other country, but as a nation we are committed to whatever action the United Nations has decreed should be taken. Such action would be taken collectively with all other signatory nations of the San Francisco charter, and taken as a result of the fact that we hold membership in the United Nations. We are committed to take action collectively with all other signatory nations to put down aggression in Korea or wherever it may occur.
At this point we do compliment the United States on the prompt action they took immediately after the aggression of the Northern Koreans. If we are to play our full part as a nation there must obviously be a maximum level of Canadian unity. Unfortunately however there are in Canada today some grievances which seriously affect that unity. During two or three weeks of the summer I had an opportunity to travel through western Canada and to talk with many people. I found that there were certain paramount problems about which they complained, and the first of these was the freight rates situation.
The people in the west definitely feel that the government has not taken the action that should have been taken to remove the grievous disability from which they suffer in the matter of freight rates. There is discrimination in favour of the east. They know that, and they are not satisfied. They will not be satisfied until that discrimination is removed, because it puts them in a desperate position. They simply cannot compete with others in Canada under the existing freight rates structure. I say the government must take action as soon as possible to remove that grievance, if they are to expect Canadian unity to meet trials and difficulties in the days ahead.
The second grievance, which I shall discuss only briefly, is that of the cost of living and of prices. I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that there

The Address-Mr. Low is every evidence that profiteering is going on in many lines today. I do not suggest that that profiteering is on the part of the small retailer; I do not believe it is. But I do think there is room for investigation to see just who is profiteering.
I suggest that the government should take immediate steps to institute such an investigation, and to put a stop to any practice of this kind. We hope the government's program to meet a condition of inflated prices and an increased cost of living is not going to be confined solely to high taxation. One would gather that that may be so, from what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said this afternoon. But the cost of living must be tackled, and tackled seriously, and with effective remedies. There is a remedy at hand. We have already suggested what our views would be in the matter. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the effective remedy is to put on overall controls. I do not think we need to do that at this time; but I do suggest seriously and earnestly that we introduce a system of subsidies on certain selected items in the cos't of living, and see to it that consumer prices are kept down, without having any ill effect upon the producers of those goods.
Certainly the government is in a position to take some action in the matter of hidden taxation that inevitably pushes up the cost of living and purchase prices to a point where our people are placed in an almost impossible position. I hope that when the government brings in its taxation measure it will have considered well this whole problem of the cost of living and that the tax measure which we understand will be coming in will not impose upon the Canadian people a tax that will spiral costs or push up the cost of living.
In the splendid speech that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made yesterday, I think perhaps the best I have heard him make, he declared that it is of importance for us to understand our enemy. He then outlined in some detail the main features of soviet communist imperialism. In the course of this explanation the minister of external affairs stated that we must expect attacks by this insidious foe of free humanity in any part of the globe. I agree, and every one of us here must agree, that it is important for us to know our enemy. We should be thoroughly familiar with every possible detail concerning him and his aims.
It has occurred to me since yesterday afternoon that it is also important for us to understand how Russian communist imperialists have become our enemies. It seemed to me that it would be most useful if we could


determine exactly by what process Russia has become so powerful and so belligerent between 1917 and the present time. Here is a nation which at the turn of the century was a push-over for the comparatively weak Japan. Here is a country that in 1914-17 was considered to be a good-natured, plodding conglomeration of racial groups with no fixed intentions and certainly with no threatening abilities.
How could this amazing transformation occur in a period of about thirty years? Was Russia's rise to the position of being the foremost belligerent in the world the result of accidental growth or was it the result of a definite policy on the part of powerful interests inside as well as outside Russia? Perhaps the facts which I shall now present may help to clarify, at least to some extent, the whole question and provide some answer to it.
The. question certainly must be not just who is our enemy. Certainly it is not the Koreans. I think the Koreans are being used as tools and they are going to have visited upon them terrible things as a result of what they have allowed themselves to become. In a book written by Mr. George Lansbury, former chairman of the British Labour party, entitled, "Looking Backwards and Forwards", published in 1935, is to be found a detailed exposition of the manner in which Lenin and Trotsky were financed as far back as 1907 by a group of Wall street bankers. It transpires that these bankers were former German nationals who got out of Germany and established themselves in Wall street, New York. All of this is admitted by Trotsky himself in his history of the Russian revolution.
In 1915 Paul Rodzianko quoted the president of the Russian duma as saying:
Some people are In favour of peace, but they dare not speak. Rasputin will not work for peace for he is run by a ring of banks who make money out of the war.
Could this possibly be the Dresdner bank and banking group brought together by Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg in New York. * There is pretty authentic evidence available to show that this same ring did finance the Japanese in the war against Russia earlier in the 1900's.
Possibly the most monumental piece of evidence that the international group which I mentioned financed the Russian revolution was the report of the French high commissioner in the United States early in 1919, from material supplied by the United States secret service. The report brought forward indisputable evidence that the firm of Kuhn,

Loeb and Company of Wall street had fomented and financed the Russian revolution. Furthermore, it declared that the same group had the contracts for the industrialization of Russia beforehand. Evidently the Krupps, the general dyes trust, the Hugo Stinnes and other concerns, directed or owned plants in Russia, most of them financed by the international, group amongst which was the Dresdner bank. Much of the capital had been smuggled out of Germany to Switzerland during a time when Germany claimed she was too poor to pay reparations. It is estimated that from 19 to 30 billion marks at the rate of 15 to the dollar were smuggled out during that time and went into war and industrial plants in Holland, Russia and Switzerland.
A report which appeared in the New York Times of March 24, 1917, seems to me more than sufficient to indicate that the Wall street group of international banks were interested in the Russian revolution. George Kennan reported at a meeting that day that Mr. Jacob Schiff had heavily financed revolutionary propaganda amongst 50,000 Russian prisoners of war in Japan, as far back as 1905. It is significant to note that this New York meeting was held in celebration of the outbreak of the Russian revolution, and at it a message was read from Mr. Schiff expressing his pleasure at the achievement of "What we had hoped and struggled for these long years." I imagine it is something of a shock to many people that a man from the most powerful banking house in the world should express his satisfaction in such a manner at the outbreak of the Russian revolution.
If further evidence is needed that this international banking group financed the revolution it is to be found in documents seized from the bolsheviks by the Kerensky government, and later established by the Sisson report in the United States. These documents named Warburg's bank as providing large funds for munitions for Trotsky. A close study of official Russian statements over the past 20 years indicates one policy which has not wavered. That policy is to use war to further the plan for world revolution.
Away back on November 26, 1920, Lenin proclaimed this:
Our salvation would be more readily assured if the imperialist powers became embroiled in a war.
On February 21, 1935, the political bureau of the communist international, after being addressed by Stalin, passed a resolution in which it said:
The political bureau is definitely convinced that a new world war is absolutely inevitable, but explains this as the obvious preparation for the world revolution. With the aim of self-preservation,
The Address-Mr. Low
and in the interests of the world revolutionary movement, the soviet government must do all possible to enter the camp of the states which build the strongest coalition.
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence of Russian policy will be found outlined in the book "La Greve est un Combat" by Lozovsky, who was later appointed head of the Moscow foreign office, where he became the political adviser to Molotov. His chief aim in life, according to his own account, was the overthrow of the existing democracies by revolution fomented as a result of war. Lozovsky's immediate chief in the comintem, Manouilski, declared at the congress of the Russian communist party, I think it was in March of 1939:
This war will be the most just, the most holy, that has ever been fought in the history of mankind: a war which will necessarily stir up a whole series of revolutionary outbreaks within the enemy ranks, and which will break up and demoralize the ranks of imperialism.
Of course he was branding the democracies as imperialists. A still more remarkable statement, to me at any rate, was made by Stalin on March 10, 1939, addressing the bolshevik congress assembled at that time. Here are his words:
The policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war; reveals an eagerness to allow all the belligerents to sink deeper into the mire of war, to encourage them surreptitiously in this, to allow them to weaken and exhaust one another, and then when they have become weak enough, to appear on the scene with fresh strength; to appear of course "in the interests of peace" and to dictate conditions to the enfeebled belligerents. That policy is cheap and it serves our purpose.
I do not think I need draw the attention of hon. members to the way that policy has been and is now being carried out by Russia, faithfully and to the very letter. If I ever heard of a blueprint of their intentions, that is it. Is it not clear to all that Stalin's statement of policy I just read was almost an exact blueprint of what has taken place since that statement was made in 1939? Does it not also explain Russia's most remarkable attitude in the present Korean conflict where, as the minister said yesterday, Russia is trying to prove that the left hook was knocked out by the jaw? Is it not also a blueprint of what the communists have been doing in this and other countries, ostensibly in the name of peace? What about our peace movements here, and these fellows down in Toronto who for all practical purposes have allied themselves with Moscow? I am reminded at this point that in 1939, when Canada was discussing whether our manpower should be sent to Europe to fight Hitler, Moscow's agent in Canada, Tim Buck, declared that not a man should be sent to fight the German fuehrer. It would be, he said, an imperialistic war, and we should not
128	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low take part in any such war. When Germany attacked Russia a little later on, however, Tim Buck threw a circus somersault, just one of the many he has thrown, and urged that Canada go all-out in sending men and material to fight Hitler. That is the old line, just exactly what Stalin said should be done. Now we have this same communist and his friends in Canada talking about peace. This, of course, fits in with Stalin's remarks, which I read a moment ago, and certainly we can easily imagine the kind of peace they are after.
Well, Russia has taken a number of steps towards dominating Europe and Asia, as was predicted by Stalin. In the light of this situation and in the light of the minister's statement yesterday afternoon that there is grave danger of an uprising in western Germany, this prediction, when it appeared in an English journal on September 16, 1939, seems to me more than significant:
The Russian attitude toward the Hitler regime will he liquidated and Germany, presented with an active enemy on the Polish frontier, will find herself between two fires, a position impossible to defend. Disorder and revolution in Germany will unseat a deflated Hitler. Reconstruction, and a new and convenient note on the propaganda organ, with perhaps a touch of the whip of financial deflation, will convince the Germans of the essential unity of their ideals with mother Russia.
That has been before us ever since 1939. I wonder how much attention we have been paying to such declarations. Is that not exactly what has been happening? Well, with all these things as common knowledge, boldly printed in black and white for all to read and know, it is hard for me to understand why President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill allowed themselves to be so badly beaten and misled at Yalta and Potsdam. In the light of Russia's oft and openly expressed policies, why did they allow these things to happen, for instance? And I am only quoting a few. First, why did they allow Russia several weeks of sole occupation of Berlin before the allied troops moved in? Second, why did they allow the partition of Berlin in such a way as to leave no corridor of approach, which made possible the Russian blockade of 1948-49? To beat that blockade, as hon. members recall, required a tremendous expenditure of money, material and manpower by the western powers, which was bound to weaken them. Why was the dividing line between eastern and western Berlin drawn in such a way as to give the Russian zone all the power plants for the whole city, so they could torment the citizens of west Berlin by turning off the power whenever they wanted to cause an incident? Third, why did Churchill and Roosevelt allow the partition of Germany and Korea in such a way as to make possible the building up of huge communist armies in each of these countries?


From this terrible mistake, called by the minister yesterday a matter of unfortunate military convenience, has directly stemmed the present Korean aggression and the situation in eastern Germany, which holds a constant threat of war and aggression in Europe. Fourth, why did Roosevelt and Churchill agree to the dismantling of so many of the German industrial plants in 1947 and 1948? I believe on another occasion in this house I mentioned that I saw a number of these plants in the Ruhr valley being dismantled, some of them being sent to such countries as Yugoslavia and Greece, finding their way behind the iron curtain where they could be seized and used by Russia whenever she pleased. Yesterday the minister said:
It is no longer a question of whether Germany is to be rearmed, because the communist part of Germany is already rearmed ... if western Germany is to be defended, it must be given arms with which to assist in its own defence.
I say we must be mighty careful about rearming Germany, because I am satisfied that a rearmed Germany would try it again. Then one recalls that one of President Roosevelt's chief aides, in fact the man who arranged the Yalta conference and who stood at his shoulder during that fateful meeting, was Alger Hiss. One does not forget, either, that when Hiss was convicted, nearly two years ago, of being one of the top communists in the United States he was warmly defended by Acheson, the present secretary of state. I am sure a person might be forgiven for wondering if Mr. Acheson is also, willingly or unwillingly, a protege of the Wall street gang which has been so anxious to promote war and revolution as a means of bringing power and profit to its members.
I am reminded at this point of an article that appeared in the New York Herald Tribune of June 27, 1932, written by none other than Walter Lippmann, in which he said:
It is evident that Roosevelt is not the leader of the forces behind him; he is being used.
A responsible man like Walter Lippmann must have had some reason for making such a statement. I do not know whether it was true, but I believe it could be shown quite easily that America has been the largest contributor to the building up of Russia's huge war-making industrial machine. That has not been with the sanction of the American people as a whole, for whom I have the highest possible regard, but most certainly it has been through the intrigue of a small group who have been in a position to dictate policy. I think it would be most useful and revealing to find out just who has been dictating American policy in this respect. A close study of Russo-American

history, I am sure, would reveal the true enemies of civilization, and I think we should be getting after them. At Easter, 1929, Bertrand Russell is reported to have said that a world war would start during 1939 from which America and Russia would emerge as dictators of the world. He added that the conflict would reduce Germany, Italy, France and England to ruins. I leave hon. members to judge for themselves whether or not Bertrand Russell was in the know.
Much more could be said to indicate how Russia has grown to be a threat to the rest of the world. However, I think I should now say in a few words how we view the present situation. In reality we are facing the most dangerous situation we have ever faced in our history, and somehow we have got to meet it. I quite agree with the minister of external affairs that this grave danger cannot be overcome by military action alone. I agree with the member for Rosetown-Biggar that we have got to use other methods as well, and give all the aid we can to the other parts of the world that require to be brought up to a decent standard of living.
From a military point of view, of course, Canada must be ready to defend herself against acts of aggression that appear possible. Canada must also be ready to fulfil every obligation that devolves upon her as a member of the United Nations so long as she remains a member of that organization. In 1945 we became a signatory to the San Francisco charter. I say that as long as we are members it is up to us to see to it that every one of our obligations is fulfilled. It is to be regretted in the extreme that every nation who signed that charter has not lived up to its obligations. If they had the United States would not have had to stand alone all these weeks in Korea.
The nations who are parties to the San Francisco charter are facing the most serious test that they have ever faced. They must now demonstrate to the whole world that they are capable of effective collective action to put down aggression wherever or whenever it may raise its head. If they do not, then world conflict is bound to be brought many steps closer to us. It does seem unfortunate that the free nations find it so difficult to co-operate with one another in the interests of world peace, and to move swiftly when danger appears. It is difficult to find the root cause of this inability of the free nations to rise quickly in collective action. As a general rule democracy is slow to get into high gear. In addition to that all of our educational systems in the various 69262-9
The Address-Mr. Low free nations have, for many decades, been training the youth in the arts of competition almost to the entire neglect of co-operation.
I need not remind hon. members that nations become nothing but the sum total of the attitudes and ways of the individuals who make up those nations. If the nations of the world now are ever to be able to take collective action against aggression that will preserve their freedoms and the way of life each wants, they must see that individual citizens are trained in the true art of cooperation. I feel sure that the Canadian people will be prepared to give their very best efforts in every way to meet the challenge of these times. Even if the decisions taken at this session do have, as they doubtless will have, serious effects upon the living standards and the lives of all Canadians, I am sure that our people will carry their burdens without murmuring, provided they are made to feel that their grievances are removed in so far as they can be; and provided they feel that the cause for which they struggle and work is a righteous cause. Let us be sure it is righteous.
We are prepared to support the government in building up Canada's defence to the point where we are making the wisest possible use of all of our resources. It is well known that the Social Credit organization has always considered that our efforts to bring security to our own people, and peace to the rest of the world, should be limited only by the extent of our total resources. They are vast resources, as has already been said. We also believe that there must be the utmost of speed in putting Canada into the strongest position necessary to meet whatever will have to be met. It is out belief that the Prime Minister and his colleagues were wise in not sending the small regular Canadian army for service in Korea. That is a job for a special force of another character entirely. Whether or not the new special force that is being recruited proves to be the type of force I shall not be able to say until I get more details.
I am not one, sir, who feels that a world war is inevitable. On the contrary, I feel confident that a world war can be averted, especially if the united free nations of the world take effective action now to put down this aggression in Korea and to see to it that a settlement is made afterward that will satisfy the Koreans. I would suggest, too, that if the united free nations of the world would set up a brigade of honest men-not a brigade in the military sense of the word- and charge them with the responsibility of hunting out and putting the spotlight on the

The Address-Mr. Pearkes real enemies of civilization and disarming them of their forces, then the world could build a real and lasting peace.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment which was proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon, I propose to show that His Excellency's advisers have failed to provide adequately for the defence of Canada. I shall confine my remarks to that portion of the amendment which refers directly to the defence forces of this country. I shall not touch upon the second part of the amendment, although that is closely related to the first part. Others will follow who will deal with the second part.
Yesterday we listened to the speeches of two cabinet ministers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) gave us an historical review of the various events leading up to the present aggression in Korea, and he also gave us some insight into one or two aspects of government foreign policy. I shall long remember his address owing to the quantity and quality of the adjectives which were included in his remarks. I should like to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for his kindly reference to myself. In his usual clear and concise manner he, in his speech, confirmed all the recent press releases which have been made by his department.
Mr. Speaker, the material of those speeches was not good enough. The members had a right to expect a great deal more. We have travelled from all parts of Canada, at considerable inconvenience to ourselves and at great expense to the public. We had a right to be given more concrete information as to the course this government proposes to follow in these critical times.
After the review of the historic events leading up to the Korean crisis, the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed us that the invasion of the republic of South Korea was an act of aggression. It is true that it was an act of aggression. I wish he had emphasized still more that it was an act of aggression not merely against a satellite of the United States but against a country in which the United Nations have a special interest. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) this afternoon stressed that point, and I think it is one of the outstanding points of interest in connection with

this whole matter because it is the United Nations who guaranteed the independence of Korea.
It was my privilege to stand at the entrance to Esquimau harbour and to see the three Canadian destroyers leave the shores of Canada to sail across the broad waters of the Pacific. I was thrilled. The navy had done a first-rate job in getting those three destroyers ready in the week's time that they had available to them. Changes in command of, I think, every vessel were necessary. It was essential that the ships' companies be completed by withdrawing key personnel from the cruiser Ontario and other vessels and from shore establishments. The vessels had to be supplied with victuals and with ammunition. Yet they left on time. It was a proud moment for all those who saw those vessels leave. We were proud of our Canadian navy, proud of our men who were manning those vessels, and proud, at that time, that Canada was prepared to play her part in what appeared to be the first United Nations effort to stop aggression. Then as those vessels vanished out of sight, or a couple of days later, when we saw the cruiser Ontario return to Esquimau harbour, the people of British Columbia began to realize that they had then no defence of the west coast of this country. Their only active destroyers had gone. The Ontario, a training ship, her crew depleted, her personnel made up of reservists, was returning. Had there been enemy submarines in those waters or if enemy submarines appeared in those waters today, the Ontario must withdraw behind the anti-submarine nets and stay in Esquimau harbour. It would be suicide to send her, a training ship, out unescorted by destroyers, without proper protection, against enemy submarines. I repeat that the west coast is defenceless as far as the navy is concerned.
Then we thought of the air. We have in Vancouver one regular air squadron whose duty is to carry out search and rescue work in connection with accidents at sea. We have an auxiliary fighting squadron made up of personnel who, in the ordinary course of events, go about their ordinary civilian avocations and give such time as they can to training and manning of the aircraft. They have two or three Vampire planes, two jet planes with which to defend the hundreds of miles of dangerous, indented British Columbian coast. That is the situation which exists today and which the people of British Columbia now realize exists.
When this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of National Defence some sort of press release was issued to the

effect that if there was any trouble the United States navy would be there ready to help us. Do not forget that the major units of the United States navy, which are normally stationed in American Pacific waters, are today in the Far East off Korea, watching the straits between the mainland of China and Formosa and guarding the sea lanes in the Far East. They are not at hand in great numbers ready and available to intercept anything which might be threatening the coast of British Columbia. The other day we listened to an outline of the new auxiliary air squadrons which the minister intends to establish. I listened intently to hear whether the appeals of the ex-flying men of British Columbia had been answered, and whether included amongst the new auxiliary air force squadrons would be the squadron which Victoria has been appealing to the minister year after year to have supplied. But there was no mention of it. I repeat that the coast line of British Columbia is defenceless and steps must be taken without delay to make good the deficiencies which already exist. It is too great a risk to ask the people of British Columbia to run. I know that you will say the Pacific coast is the back door of Canada. The main entrance today is on the Atlantic, but the enemy which we face lurks in the alleyways instead of parading down the highways of this world.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) went on with his historical review I noticed that little, nay no, mention was made of that urgent appeal which was sent out by General MacArthur, and repeated a few days later from the United Nations, asking for ground troops to be sent without delay in order to assist the United States forces in their life and death struggle in Korea. Why did the minister skate around that all-important point? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it took the government almost a month to make up its mind whether it would respond to that urgent appeal from our greatest neighbour, the one to whom we have been turning and so frequently mentioning in the last few years, saying that we counted upon her to come to our help if we should be in trouble. The government took almost a month before it decided that it would provide troops to go to her assistance, to respond to what I think I may say was a pathetic appeal for help.
Then we were told that the army was not prepared; that we had no troops that we could send to answer that appeal. The Minister of National Defence said that the supplying of forces to do police work for the United Nations against an aggressor was not part of our defence program. There was no promise that 69262-9J
The Address-Mr. Pearkes it would be done, and there was no suggestion that we should prepare to do it. I take issue with and challenge the correctness of that statement. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave the hint this afternoon that such matters had been discussed when he said that they asked for specific instructions as far back as 1946 as to what role Canada should play, but the specific instructions then were not available.
It is less than a year since the Minister of National Defence tabled his white paper in which the objectives of the defence of Canada were outlined. Talking about what had happened in the past he mentions Canada's defence purposes on page 11, and he-names them one, two and three. The third objective reads:
To work out with other free nations plans for joint defence based on self-help and mutual aid as part of a combined effort to preserve peace and ter restrain aggression.
I cannot reconcile those two statements', that this was not part of our plans when a year ago the minister published that. He cannot convince me that with such a clear directive given to the chiefs of staff, with the knowledge that they had of the events which have taken place in Greece, in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies, they would be so remiss in their duties that they would not have made plans for just such an eventuality as is happening now in Korea. I know these men. I have known them for years. I have more confidence in their integrity, in their loyalty and in their devotion to this country than to think that they would have overlooked such an elementary problem.
The government decided that it would raise a special force. It would go slow and adopt the casual procedure of creating an entirely new and improvised force, drawn not from men who had been accustomed to working with their officers, but men drawn from the streets, from this and that battalion, if they had been overseas veterans, from this and that unit of the reserve army, or schoolboys coming out of the universities through the C.O.T.C.
The appeal was made to the young men of Canada. That appeal has been magnificently responded to. But what have we got? A conglomeration of men bearing the proud names of great units, unknown to their own special unit commanders, their officers, their N.C.O's. Any man who has had any experience in the service will tell you that it takes a long time to weld such groups of men together in order that they become a fighting team, because it is teamwork that counts, not merely the individual skill of an individual soldier tp handle his weapon.

The Address-Mr. Pearkes
This government has created a new Kitchener's army-


Mr. Claxlon:: The first one was not too bad.


George Randolph Pearkes: -with all the mistakes that were made in 1914 when these hastily raised units were created. We now have a dual service army. It is no good for the minister to say that it is not so; the service conditions are different.
Reference was made to the airborne brigade. The airborne brigade is composed of magnificent units with long traditions in the service of Canada. The personnel are of the finest physique, of the strongest character. There could not be found a better type of young Canadian from the Atlantic to the Pacific; but it is no good, and it is not right that the minister should burden them with a reputation for efficiency that they have never had a chance of reaching.
Reference was made to the degree of training the airborne brigade has received. There is no headquarters. No headquarters have been trained to command the various units. There is no staff appointed. There is no signals section working with the units. Those units have never been brought together as units to take part in any formation exercise. You are saddling those men with an unfair burden if you are telling the people of Canada that they are a fully-trained operational formation. They are the grandest men there are in Canada, but their position has not been fairly represented to the people of Canada. Trained in unit exercises?-yes. Trained in the individual use of their weapons?-yes but not trained'-no training commenced-as an airborne brigade or to fight together as component units of a brigade. The best that could be done, if they were called upon to go into action, would be to pour those units or sub-units into the battle piecemeal. Today they could not fight coherently because they have never been trained to act as a formation.
Again, are there suitable aircraft either to transport or to escort them? I think it is only right that the impression which was created or the impression which may have been drawn from the remarks made yesterday by the minister should be corrected.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) referred to the fact that there might be other acts of aggression. I think that is very likely. He referred to the possibility of acts of aggression, other Koreas, may I say, occurring in various parts of the world -in Persia, in Iran, in Malaya. He did not mention that such acts of aggression might occur in Canada. That day, that seemingly carefree day when, complacently, we could say that the only possible attack on Canada would be that of a diversionary raid, has

gone, and has gone for all time. Canada today is vulnerable to operations of much greater magnitude than any diversionary raid which might be checked by a few northern rangers or a couple of hundred men of the active army.
It is my considered opinion that this country is vulnerable, and that it is eminently practicable for a ruthless enemy to start an act of aggression against portions of this continent of a very much graver nature than could possibly be described as a diversionary raid.
You say: "How can that be done? It is not practicable." I referred a moment ago to the fact that we have no navy on the Pacific coast. The waters of the Pacific are wide. There is much close weather in the Pacific. It is not impracticable for a detachment of a foreign navy to cross the Pacific, unknown to such watching troops as there are available, and to reach the shores of British Columbia before effective opposition could be brought to bear-to land troops at, say, Prince Rupert. You laugh? May I remind hon. members that the American navy was closely watching the island of Kiska in the Aleutians, but the Japanese garrison slipped away under the very nose of that American fleet-and that was not a hundred men or so, but a couple of thousand men. And they did not leave by submarine or rowboat; they were transported by armed transports.
Those are things we must bear in mind. Distances have been eliminated. Airborne formations in great numbers are possible, provided the enemy is ruthless and is not particular about the losses he may suffer. And is the enemy the Americans are facing today callous or not callous about the number of casualties he suffers?
In his speech the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said there has been a good summer training for the reserve force. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a good summer "for" training; that is what he should have said. Why is it that there has not been a good summer training? The weather was fine; the camps were there; the equipment was there; the instructors were there. But there was a lack of manpower in the reserve units.
Here and there, scattered across this *country, are certain reserve units which were able to go into camp at reasonably high strength. There were many other units that failed to take 25 per cent of their establishment into camp. There were other units that failed to take in 10 per cent, or even 5 per cent. I can name some of them. I saw some of those units with my own eyes.

A unit which has not trained 10 per cent of its establishment can hardly be considered in any standard of preparedness. I do suggest the money spent on units which cannot come up to a standard of efficiency is not well spent. They cannot take the field in any reasonable time after a crisis has occurred. It would be better to send the few men of those units through the excellent basic and corps training camps that were established in this country during the last war. I do not believe money spent on that type of unit is justified, or gives adequate returns to the public for the money they are spending in that direction.
Then may we ask why? Why is it that we see this weakness in so many units? I have had reports from all over the country-I am not speaking of one isolated district. Mr. Speaker, it is because this government has failed to impress upon the country the seriousness of the present situation. The speeches which have been made in this house time and time again have encouraged a spirit of complacency which has had an effect upon recruiting for the reserve units of our services. I placed a very different interpretation upon the remarks made this afternoon by my leader than the interpretation attributed to those remarks by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he spoke afterward. My leader was sounding a grave warning, he was uttering a fervent prayer and expressing a belief that if a change was to take place, if there was real co-operation, if the people of the free countries became alive to the situation, there might be a chance of a third world war not taking place.
But there was a big "if". There have been five years of ceaseless effort to disrupt the economies of the democracies; there have been five years of manufactured revolutions by which puppet states have been set up all over this world; there have been five years of violence and murder in the colonial dependencies of many of the democracies, all of which should have taught us that we are face to face with a calculated and determined conspiracy restricted by no moral obligations whatsoever and with a potential military strength of one-third of the human race, a conspiracy which is determined upon the destruction of democracy and of both the Christian and Jewish faiths in order that a communist slave state may be established over the whole of this planet.
It is only a matter of time before that challenge has to be accepted if the free world is to survive. Therefore it seems to me that the problem facing the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and this government can be placed under three headings. First,
The Address-Mr. Pearkes there is the Korea of today. I am of the opinion that we have missed an opportunity to give world leadership in that respect. I fear that the brigade now in training will be ready, either too late or just in time to take part in the victory parade.
The second point is that there will be other acts of aggression in other parts of the world, not excluding Canada. In order to meet those acts of aggression we must have troops, including ground troops, in being. Then there is the third phase. It may be, and we hope, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has said, we may be able to educate the lesser countries, the countries which have not the same opportunities we have, that we may be able to raise their standards of living. But, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, that will take generations, and I believe that will be the case.
It is quite possible that Russia thinks she is working toward the same ends, but time is against Russia. As my leader said, we are working on borrowed time. I am inclined to think that Russia will attempt to bring on this final phase at the earliest possible opportunity as soon as she is ready. Russia will not delay because the years will work in favour of the democracies. If this final phase should come we cannot match manpower with manpower, we cannot arm with bayonets and clubs the soldiers of the democracies to meet the bayonets and clubs in the hands of the great human masses now under the control of Russia.
But we have a weapon in which we are superior to the Russians, namely, the brains and ability of our people to put into effect the industrial resources of this country. I believe that it will be with brains and machines that we shall ultimately gain the victory if we are forced into this final phase. As was shown this afternoon, there are great numbers of Russian divisions already poised in western Europe. It may well be that those Russian divisions will overrun western Europe, in which event we may find that this northern part of the American continent will be the armed airport and arsenal of the world from which eventually great air fleets would carry on a final offensive in order to regain the world for democracy and Christianity.
We must be prepared to meet those three eventualities. It will require wise judgment and a nice sense of balance to see that we do not place too much emphasis on one or the other phase. I feel that to date the government has failed to inform this nation either of the seriousness of the situation as

The Address-Mr. Gillis it exists in the world today or of the weaknesses of our own defence forces. I am sincere when I say that I sympathize with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) because of the difficulties with which he is faced. He has an extremely heavy task to perform. While 1 have found it necessary to speak as I have today I believe we should give every possible assistance in the preparation of our services as they are organized under the responsibility of the present government.
But I appeal to the minister never again to present to this house such a speech as he made yesterday. All is not well. Neither the purchase of obsolescent aircraft from the United States or elsewhere nor the exaggerated claims as to the efficiency of our equipment or our standards of training and the excellence of our own men will correct the situation.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to both the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton); and what I have to say in regard to the program and policy they placed before this house I trust will not be taken as criticism. As I see it these ministers are in pretty much the same position as a boxer in the ring. They have to do the fighting; they have the responsibility. When a boxer is in the ring a fellow at the ringside can give him a lot of good advice, to use his left, to use his right and so on; but the guy in the ring has a face full of gloves and is not in a very good position to take that advice. However, I would like to say a few things in regard to both speeches.
This is not an ordinary session of parliament. We are meeting at the call of the cabinet to deal with two emergencies. One of them we have succeeded in settling. The settlement was not exactly to my liking; nevertheless the trains are running again. In my opinion, however, the basic cause that put them off the tracks still remains, and until its roots are pulled out we are not going to remove that cause. The second matter considered an emergency-and it is an emergency-is the international situation as it affects this country. That matter is far from settled.
The first thing I want to point out is the responsibility of members themselves. I am rather disappointed at the rush to get the business concluded and the members back home. There may be various reasons for this, but I believe a basic reason is that we are

still trying to function with the kind of parliament which was designed to look after the conditions of 1867; and we do not have that kind of world any longer. This matter of running a fifteen billion dollars a year business for the Canadian people is a fulltime job, not one requiring attention only during the months we are here. I do not think the average member of parliament can continue to carry on as he did even ten or fifteen years ago, and just come in and take some responsibility while the house is in session. We are not running Canada alone; we are dealing with one world. If members of this house are to properly represent their people, keep them advised and carry them along in the changing conditions they have to continually study what is going on in the world as it relates to this country. I think hon. members will have to make up their minds either to run the business for the people of Canada as it must be run today, or to go back home and run some other kind of business for themselves. For the next few years, at least as I see things developing in the world, the constant attention of members of this house will be required, with a great deal of reading and studying in order to keep our people informed.
If that is not done we will find that our cabinets will last only about four or five years. I do not think any men who have to work as I have seen the cabinet work for the last number of years will last much longer than that. Physically it cannot be done. They are not working a thirty or forty hour week.


Mr. Fraser:: Don't play them up too much.


Clarence Gillis: The same thing applies to any member of this house who takes his responsibility seriously. He is in this building at least by nine o'clock in the morning and is here until eleven-thirty every night; and that is not a thirty-hour week. I am sure the older members of this house who have been here for some considerable time have seen a number of members of the cabinet wear out.
But we are not only overloading the cabinet in the matter of the hours they must put in and the pressure they must withstand; we are handing over to the civil service the rest of the job of running the country. We are building up a bureaucracy behind the scenes who, because we are not prepared to stay here and accept our responsibilities, must run the country in accordance with decisions we may have made months ago which perhaps have no bearing on the immediate problems with which they are confronted. Unless we are prepared to seriously consider the job of being a member of this house, in the sort of

world we are living in today, with the responsibilities we have to accept, as a full-time job, we had better not undertake it at all. If any hon. member comes in here with the idea that he wants to get out again as quickly as possible, in order to operate a business back home or something like that, then he is not doing either for his own business back home or for this country the sort of thing he should be doing. We should make up our minds to that. I may not be the brightest person in the world, but I know it takes me some considerable time to get straight in my own mind the things I know I should be thinking about. I cannot do it overnight, and I think most hon. members are in the same position.
I believe that is the first thing we must do in the light of the developing international situation. We in this house must act as a liaison between ourselves, the government and the people of Canada, because in the final analysis it is the people of Canada who will have to pay the taxes, who will have to do the fighting if fighting must be done, and who will have to produce the wherewithal to permit that fighting to be done. They should be kept informed, not by way of propaganda but by giving them the unvarnished facts, because in this kind of world you cannot fool people for very long.
Then if we are serious about making our maximum contribution in future, and if we are to have a realistic international policy, I believe we must get our own house in order, for I believe that what you do internationally is determined by what you are doing internally. If you have a chaotic, upset condition within your own country you are not going to be able to make your maximum contribution to the work of the United Nations. In that connection I would remind hon. members that last week we had a serious disruption of our entire economy. That disruption was not brought about for fun. The men engaged in it were serious people. It happened because a certain group in our society were still receiving substandard wages, and every time they picked up a newspaper or listened to the radio they were told that sugar was in short supply; that prices were going up; that butter was going up, tea was going up, and so on. In the last six months a terrific increase has taken place in the cost of the things that go on the table of the average man; and eighty per cent of the income of the average salary or wage earner in this country is spent on the essentials that go on his table. So the increase in the cost of foodstuffs alone has put a terrific strain upon those who are producing the wealth of this country; and that group in
The Address-Mr. Gillis that sector of our society, regardless of international affairs or wars or anything else, went on strike and the economy of the country was disrupted. Secondly, that is not going to stop there unless we do something about the root cause, and the root cause is inflationary prices. In this country it has taken us since 1945 to persuade some of the unions in the basic industries that long-term contracts were necessary. In my opinion a year's contract is no good. The ink on it is scarcely dry before you get into another fight. Some of the unions did do that. The mine workers, for example, signed a two-year agreement, and the auto workers signed a five-year agreement. As soon as we get that problem in the right focus, away go prices.
The argument one now hears everywhere is that we signed an agreement on the expectation that the government would at least see that prices were kept within reasonable limits. As soon as we tie ourselves to a five-year agreement, away go prices and we lose everything we gained within the last two or three years. If we are a responsible union we are tied to that contract, and we cannot violate it. There is unrest in the steel industry because the conciliation board has not been successful. Steel is basic to our economy. One of our first jobs is to see that the economy of this country is arranged in such a way that it is not going to be disrupted and interfere with our commitments in the international field. Those commitments will not wait. We are not the aggressor. If we are going to make our maximum contribution in the international field, then we have to see that our own economy is regulated and geared to maximum production. We have to see that there is no possibility of disruption as we go along. That is not very difficult because the price control machinery is there. It is just a matter of taking it out of mothballs. The excess profits tax legislation can be looked at.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) says that he wants more taxes. With prices skyrocketing people are going to wonder if income taxes are increased but nothing is done about excess profits taxes. I believe those things are absolutely necessary at this time. Our first step towards doing a good job outside is to get our own economy in order, as an example to those outside that we are able to run our own show.


Mr. Ferrie:: Soak the farmer; that is the best way to do it.


Clarence Gillis: I am talking about the farmer, too.

The Address-Mr. Gillis


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You want to take it all away from him.


Clarence Gillis: He is not doing so badly. Facts and figures bear that out. As I was saying, I think our first job is to see that our own house is put in order.
In connection with this matter of national defence, I may say that I listened to the minister's speech. I believe he was badly advised at the last session of the house when he refused to implement the proposal for a national defence committee. In the light of what has happened in the last couple of months, I believe that if the minister had been in the position to call in that committee to share the responsibility for the development of defence equipment, he would have relieved himself of a great burden. Making the members on this side take some responsibility is not a bad way of neutralizing opposition. The minister did not do that. I believe it still should be done. Then, too, I believe the minister used bad psychology during his radio broadcast concerning the new defence force, the police force. As I recall it, he had this to say. He said the special force we will be raising will not be drawn from the regular forces. The army we have in Canada now, and the air force, is going to remain in Canada for the defence of Canada. This new force is going to receive a certain amount of training, and will be available to this international police force.
I know the minister meant well, but here is the reaction his words created throughout the country. I know it was my reaction. I said, "Yes, that is not a bad arrangement." We have filled up the chairs with brigadiers and generals; we have set up a good professional army in Canada with men who came out of universities. We have given them training for the last five or six years, and now that there is some fighting to be done they are going to stay home and defend Canada. We are going to pick the little fellow out of the ranks of the unemployed, put him in uniform and send him out. That may not have been the minister's intention, but I am telling the minister that was my reaction, and that was the reaction of the average man in the street. I heard such comments everywhere I went. Whether or not we like it, that is poor psychology.
I believe we have fallen down on the job in this matter of defence. When the United Nations charter came before this house we were definitely told that under this arrangement the military staff of the different countries would meet, and an international police force would be selected. I know that was not done because, as I understand it,


every obstacle was put in the way by the U.S.S.R. We know why Russia did that. On the other hand Russia organized her police force in country after country. She was using the satellite countries to build up armies. At the same time the commonwealth group, instead of doing what we said we were going to do under the UN, did nothing. Surely we did not expect that our obligation was going to end because Russia did not want us to do anything about it. This force should have been organized five or six years ago. When the Korean affair started this country, Britain, the United States and other commonwealth countries should have had a force ready to send there. I know it was a shock to me, as it was to a lot of other people, to find the security council of the United Nations acting as quickly as it did. But when a definite decision was made that an act of aggression had been committed in Korea, there was no force available to send there. The other fellow had his army ready, his tanks and his equipment, but the UN had nothing except the token force sent by the United States.
I believe both the United States and ourselves have fallen down badly on this matter of defence. We should have had some force ready. No purpose is served in holding a post mortem over the thing. From now on we have to recognize the fact, as I said a moment ago, that we are not living in the Canada in which we were living ten years ago. If you read that book written by the late Wendell Willkie after his tour of the world, you will find that he definitely stated we are living in one world. What happens in one part affects the other part. It is too bad that man did not live, because he would have been a valuable person in the world today. In that book he clearly visualized the development of the world.
We have been lulled into complacency by the fact that we have been living close-to the United States all this time, and there are no fortifications on the border. There is no fear of aggression from that direction, but the world has shrunk. Despite the fact that we are not afraid of the United States, Korea, China, Greece, Germany and every other part of the world today offers opportunity for aggression at any time they feel like moving; and we must recognize the fact that we have got to keep our outposts up and be ready to go to the assistance of those outposts at any time that it is necessary.
In Korea itself I think the lesson taught there is one that should be learned. We have had five years in that part of the world. When the war finished in 1945 the United Nations divided that country in two, or at least they followed out the terms of the agreement in setting up the spheres of influence, Russia

on one side and the United States on the other. We had five years under a UN commission in Korea. Russia did what she should do according to her program if she intends to dominate the world. She put in technical personnel. She built up an army. She trained that army and she put guns and ammunition in their hands to move forward when they were ready.
On the other hand, what did the United States do or what did we ourselves do? The United States army stayed in there for a while. They developed some kind of mechanics. They got some kind of government functioning, and I am not being too critical about that because a country that was under the domination of Japan since 1904 could have little idea of the mechanics of democracy or the functioning of government. But they picked up what they could, and unfortunately they picked up people who were trained in the wrong kind of way by the Japanese when they occupied that part of the country.
Ever since the formation of the South Korean government there has been a great deal of criticism-and that criticism has come from people like ourselves, not rank leftists or anything of that kind-about the way in which things were done in South Korea. For example, instead of getting in people who would develop democracy from the bottom, they were trying to impose it from the top. I myself saw a report by a man who was well informed and who went into that part of the country as a trade union expert, with the intention of developing the trade union movement; and that is the basis of democracy in any country. What happened? He got nowhere there. Everybody in Korea who did not agree with Syngman Rhee was considered to be a communist.
The part of this report which I read in some of the American papers was to the effect that in the last year, or in one year, over
150,000	people were jailed in that country because they expressed opinions different from the opinions of those who were in power. We did not develop democracy there. We pulled out and we left it wide open, with a discontented people. As a result, we are paying for that mistake. As for myself, I think that what we must do in the future is this. When you take over a country such as Korea, instead of occupying it and trying to impose a government from the top, the mechanics of democracy must be developed from the bottom. As this chap, Stanley Earl, pointed out in his report, you cannot develop democracy by means of cocktail parties and just meeting with the bankers' association. That is 69262-10
The Address-Mr. Gillis the kind of thing he ran up against. He finally left altogether and came back to the United States a few months ago.
That is the kind of thing that was going on there. That is why the token forces the Americans have had there have had things so tough. I myself think they have been sabotaged from top to bottom. A good deal of that could have been avoided if, back in 1945, 1946, and 1947, people who really intended to develop democracy in that country had gone in there and shown the Korean people, the peasants and the workers of Korea who had been exploited, kicked around and mistreated by the Japanese since 1904 that we really came in as their liberators and intended to develop within that country a united nation under the United Nations. But that was not done. I think we must benefit by that mistake.
Do not forget that the appeal that Russia is making to the average man today is exactly the same as the one that Hitler made. Hitler's only appeal to oppressed people was: Give up your freedom and in return we will give you security. That was the appeal that he made. When people are starved, jailed and mistreated, they will try anything. That is why China capitulated as fast as she did. There must be the will to fight. People must have something to fight for. It is just not good enough to be against something, for one to say that he is against communism or against fascism. I think we have got to be for something; and in my opinion that something is this. We have got to go in there, establish democracy, raise living standards, make these people part of a world organization and give them something to fight for. Otherwise the road ahead is going to be fairly tough.
We might as well realize-and I am quite frank in my thinking about it-that for the rest of our lives we are going to have high taxes and standing armies, not for the purpose of aggression but for the purpose of defending ourselves, because the people we are dealing with today, namely the Soviet union, have not any intention of stopping. All of this nonsense that their representative talks at the United Nations and all of the other propaganda you get all over the country, and which is fooling a great many people, does not fool anyone who knows the program and policy of that party. They say definitely, and have said so for a long time, that the system of capitalism and communism cannot exist in the one world. One has to go.
Here are some figures I picked up in the press, as given by defence minister Emanuel

The Address-Mr. Gillis Shinwell to the House of Commons in Britain. He reported that Russia had 2,800,000 men under arms; that she maintains an army of 175 active divisions, of which one-third are mechanized; that she has 19,000 military planes, including jet aircraft of the latest design, both bombers and fighters; that she has 25,000 tanks; that she could double her 2,800,000-man standing army by calling up reserves; that she has considerable naval forces which include strong fleets of submarines, many of them of modern design; and that she is spending not less than 13 per cent of her national income on her armed forces. They are not doing that for fun.
In addition to that potential within the borders of Russia itself, you have the satellite countries to contend with; and in the period that Russia is in today, she is not going to use any of her own forces. This is the period they designed as the period of national revolutions, and they are running according to schedule. They are promoting the thing from the inside. They are softening up their victims. They are holding their own forces in reserve but they are using the satellites. They will fight in Korea to the last Chinaman, as far as Russia is concerned. They will do the same in any other country; and when they get it properly messed up and softened up, that huge force within the borders of Russia itself is there to be used. That is what we are up against and we might as well realize that. I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) might as well realize that also; and I think the members of this House of Commons had better realize it and see that their people back home understand it, because we must have their understanding co-operation. We have either got to beat that machine or that machine is going to beat us. That is the basis on which we have got to do our thinking today. I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and others this afternoon and also the Secretary of State for External Affairs were realistic when they said that military strength is not enough. We must have an economic program to support it, because the greatest weapon we have in Asia, and in many sections of Europe, is the sending of foodstuffs to them. If we consider the fact that from 40 per cent to 45 per cent of the present world's production is being produced on this continent and we have only 7 per cent of the world's population to use it, we will see that the huge surpluses that can be produced on this continent must be sent out. These figures, brief as they are, indicate also the complete lack of the necessities of life in other parts of the world. Whoever gets in there first and feeds and clothes these people

will have their support. Talking about longterm investments in other countries, I do not care whether it is a gift because if we give it away it is an insurance that at least you are going to live the normal span of life, you are going to be alive on this continent anyway for the next twenty-five or thirty years. If we do not give it away, if we do not assist these backward countries, someone else is going to go in and do it at the point of a gun, and at the point of a gun these people are going to come to this part of the world where there is something to eat.
We had better learn that lesson and take the advice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and others who have stated realistically that we should get down to business, get an economic and social program and extend it to other parts of the world that are badly in need of it, so that we may have their friendship and their support in the world to come to face the machine that has been developed in Russia for the purpose of destroying everything that exists on this continent.
The thing that is necessary now, Mr. Speaker, if we mean business, is to shake off whatever complacency we have, because this is not the time for it. Every hon. member has to consider himself a liaison officer between this House of Commons and what the government is doing, and must do, and the people back home who have to produce the wherewithal. The government immediately must take some steps to control prices, because unless they control prices they will set off a chain reaction such as we had here the other day in steel, coal and other essential commodities. That can be done and done very easily. Then there should be the reimposition of the excess profits tax in order to hold down as low as we possibly can whatever increases may be necessary in the personal income tax. If these things are done and done immediately, and the members of the House of Commons go back and back up that stand and make being a member of parliament a full-time job, they will be assisting greatly in this crisis. You must get out among the people and keep them informed and posted. Do not forget the little firebugs in this country are out all the time. They are not thinking of running a business and making money for themselves. They are thinking about destroying this country, taking this country over and replacing this institution by an institution with one man in it, Tim Buck, who will tell you what to do, and when to get up and what you are going to eat, and so forth. For the next couple of years we have to keep our feet on the ground, get out and do a job among our people to offset the

kind of worm that is undermining the institutions of this country today.


Mr. R. O. Campney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, five years have intervened since the conclusion of the last war. We have lived in a world in which hope and fear have been intermingled, hope that we would be spared all the horrors of another war and fear that the exigency of war might again come to us in our lifetime. Sometimes it has been a hope; sometimes it has been a fear. In the recent past there has existed in the democracies the fear that we would again be faced with the dreadful prospect of another war.
If we go back five years we could have at that time, like any democratic nation, adopted one of two attitudes. We could have devoted all our resources and revenues to preparing for another war, or we could have done nothing.
I think that the people of all democracies abhor war. They never like to prepare for war unless they have to do so. The question whether or not we have made a proper approach to the problem has become increasingly important. In my lifetime we have gone through two wars. We were not in fact ready for the other wars at the time at which they actually started. The possibility was contemplated but when they actually became apparent we were not ready. On the other hand I think we came out of those wars as creditably and contributed as much as any nation in the world. Today we should look at the situation as it exists, so far as we can be informed, sanely, coolly and realistically, and try to keep ourselves from being worked into hysteria, which may be characterized toy a lot of sound but which does not solve anything. If we do so we shall see that we have taken a reasonable and longterm approach to this problem. I will make further reference to that later.
I was disturbed to hear the hon, member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) make what I thought was an unfair, not an attack on, but a series of observations about the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs, like his predecessor, the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) during the past four or five years, in fact ever since the last war ended, has kept this country as fully informed as, and probably more fully informed than, most other countries in the world. These gentlemen have been most meticulous to see that every bit of information that could be given to the public was given.
I do not think any secretary of state for external affairs, any more than any other
69262-10i
The Address-Mr. Campney individual, can peer into the future and tell us what is going to happen. All that he can do is to deal with the facts as they develop. There is nothing static about external affairs. They go on from day to day and vary from day to day. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has in my opinion done a marvellous job in keeping this house and the country informed. He has gone further than that. His participation in the activities of the United Nations has made a mark and a contribution to the solution of the world's problems, so far as we have had any solution, and to the progress of our preparedness equal to that of any other foreign minister of the world. His name has become famous throughout the United Nations.
As I recall the debates in the past two or three sessions since I have been a member, the cry of the opposition has been that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has not given information, but has kept all the facts under cover. They complain that they have not been able to find out all the details. Well, there are two sides to that. I took the trouble to look up the British Hansard which dealt with war estimates, army estimates, naval estimates, and air estimates. I looked at the information given. Generally speaking, we certainly have had much more information than that given to the parliament of Great Britain. In the speech which the minister of defence made yesterday we had as fine, as complete and as detailed a presentation of the present proposals with respect to the special force and the proposals with respect to our regular forces, the development with respect to our reserve army and the other services, the navy and the air force, as any person could reasonably expect. I think the presentation of the relevant facts was just as perfect as any minister could be expected to make it in existing circumstances.
One criticism, as I understood it, made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) was that we had been dilatory and ineffective in taking the necessary steps in connection with the special force for service in Korea or in such other part of the world as it might be necessary to use it. The hon. member, I believe, paid a very fine compliment to the men, as men; but he said that the special force was a "conglomeration of men" and, I took it, developed from that suggestion the deduction that it was something of which we might not be too proud.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: He did not say that.


An hon. Member:: He said nothing of the kind.

The Address-Mr. Campney


Ralph Osborne Campney: I know that many of these men are veterans of the last war. Moreover, the minister's statement yesterday that their basic training would be over in ten weeks, and the fact that they could be available to go abroad before the end of the year, indicates clearly to me, first, that the number of veterans in the force is going to have an extremely useful effect on its quick development as a fighting unit and, secondly, that a nucleus of technical people will be readily available to train them. After all, war is now a much more technical process than it used to be.
I could not agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who spoke somewhat disparagingly of the large number of technical personnel. It is my view that, until we are actually committed to war, that is the tyipe of personnel we must have ready. If we do not have them ready, how are we going to train the units we would want to send abroad to take part in a war? It seems to me that the fact that we have large numbers of technical personnel available indicates keen foresight on the part of the government and, in particular, of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). As he outlined yesterday, all these technical services are well manned by competent and highly-trained, skilful personnel, and I cannot think of any factor that could be more effective.
Particularly is that so at the present time, when we are gradually reaching the position where we feel we must be more active in our preparations for any participation we may have to make-and hope will not have to make-in a world war.
I do not pretend to have expert knowledge in the matter, but from my observations my associations and contacts I cannot find myself in agreement with what I understood to be the viewpoint of the hon. member for Nanaimo, who I thought disparagingly-and I believe I am using the proper word-referred to the activities of the reserve army.


Mr. Blackmore:: Would the hon. member speak more loudly. I find it very difficult to hear him.


Ralph Osborne Campney: My information is that in the last year the reserve army has been stepped up tremendously as regards voluntary enlistments, type of training, attendance at camps and other relevant details. It was not very many sessions ago that the hon. member for Nanaimo wanted to scrap the army and direct all our efforts toward the development of an air force. Today, however, it seems he is terribly concerned about the army. My view

would be that we must maintain a balance among all three services; and I think that is what the government is doing.
I had the honour last session to act as chairman of a committee which studied the bill directed to unification of the three services. At that time I was greatly impressed by the scope of the act, the approach to the problem by the government, and particularly by the vision shown by the Minister of National Defence. I was also favourably impressed by the advice of the highly competent persons who were seeking to assist the government as permanent officials in bringing about the desired unification. This, again, was done in anticipation of what might happen, and what we might be called upon to do.
The fact which presents itself most forcibly to my mind is that we do not like war; we are a democratic people; but as we become more and more convinced that a world war might occur we are prepared, within the limits of the resources of our country, to step up our preparation for such a war.
I do not agree at all with the comment of the member for Nanaimo that we have been dilatory in dealing with this matter. I think all hon. members will agree that the only nation that could save the immediate situation as it developed in Korea was the United States. That country had forces nearby, and at one time had been in actual occupation of that country. It is a truism that in a time of difficulty a nation does not commit its troops piecemeal without adequate preparation. The situation has been stabilized, and we are now making a contribution by way of a naval detachment and through our air force to its immediate needs. Within a reasonable period of time we will have a large number of troops available. I am sure that if our force does go to Korea, or wherever it may go, it will give a good account of itself, just as all Canadian units throughout our history have done.
The hon. member for Nanaimo became considerably perturbed over what he described as a very serious situation on the Pacific coast. We are all concerned about the Pacific coast, just as we are all concerned about the whole situation as it applies to the defence of Canada. My understanding is that the situation on the Pacific coast is integrated with the defence scheme of the United States, and that that scheme includes British Columbia, the Yukon and Alaska.
I happen to know something of what has been done out there, and what is now being done. In the light of that knowledge I cannot agree with him when he suggests that the

Pacific coast has been deserted, and makes the further suggestion that the coast is not defensible or that it is not in as good a position as any other part of Canada from the standpoint of defence. It is in fact in a better position than most of Canada.
Let us be practical about this matter. The hon. member for Nanaimo almost brought us, alone, to the verge of war with Russia. We alone cannot hope to win a war against Russia. We can make our contribution only in conjunction with the United States and as a participant in the conduct of any war to which the United Nations may be committed abroad. We must be realistic about this. Indeed, I think with deference that the hon. member for Nanaimo should have addressed most of his speech to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). While the hon. member for Nanaimo scolds the Minister of National Defence for not having done enough, the hon. member for Kamloops does not think anyone at all should enlist in the special force for Korea or elsewhere. Surely they should get together, because there is here a further obvious indication that the policy of the Progressive Conservative party is gaping at the seams.
In the light of ever-changing world conditions, and indeed the grave changes which take place even from day to day, I believe that this government has taken a sane, intelligent and forward-looking position, and that its action has placed this country in a position where all our available power can speedily be stepped up to meet any situation, and this with a minimum loss of time and a minimum of difficulty.
I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he says that in the event of general hostilities a great part of the contribution this country would be able to make to the common cause would be on the industrial front. In that regard I would point out that we still have our former minister of munitions and supply in the saddle, and I do not think that under such circumstances either the hon. member for Cape Breton South or I need worry further on that score.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said, there must be control of prices. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made it quite clear that there must be preparation on the economic front. I believe that he should realize that the first thing necessary to bring about a sound condition on the economic front is price control or at least stability and equitability of prices to be accomplished either by price control or some other device.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Up to the present time the people of my constituency stand absolutely astounded that the government has taken no steps, either directly or in co-operation with the provinces, to do anything at all to meet the rapidly rising price structure. The government acts exactly as though they lived on Mars and the news had not yet got to them that there might be rising prices in Canada.
There is a limit beyond which this kind of abominable thing had better not go! While prices are rising and while occasionally a group of men may strike and get increased wages, the great rank and file of the people have more or less fixed incomes which are altogether inadequate to meet prices as they now exist.
The government seems to be afraid all the time. That is one of the astonishing things. They have been in power for two or three years but they always seem to be afraid to take hold of anything and, to use an agricultural phrase, "sock the levers in" and produce results. They seem to be afraid of spending a little money or making commitments that are going to cost money. They seem to be afraid to run risks. They always-want to put the risk on the other fellow.
It would appear that the agriculturists are being asked to assume all the risks. As an example: the agriculturists in my constituency are taking all the risk. The government will' not help them at all. The government even makes things worse as for instance in allowing freight rates to be increased and thus increasing the price of everything used in production, but they will not do a single solitary thing to help them. We have striking examples of that right now. If this sort of thing is going on all over the country there certainly needs to be a change, and a very rapid and effective change. Otherwise the Minister of National Defence has no chance of having an economic situation suitable to entering another war.
It seems to^ me that the government does not quite realize, although I believe they are trying to realize, the lightning-like rapidity of the onslaught that is likely to occur. For example, supposing an airborne division of Russians lands in the central part of the prairie provinces. It is not going to make known to us by radio or by newspaper report that it is coming. We will get word suddenly that some thousands of men have arrived completely equipped and have dug themselves in. We would then have to get them out.
Several times the minister has endeavoured1 to assure us that there are forces ready to intercept any such attacking force. But when.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore you think of the enormous numbers we may have to meet and about which we heard this afternoon as constituting the forces of Russia I doubt very much that there are forces in Canada capable of intercepting such powers. Of course the ordinary member like myself who has no access to the inside facts finds it quite impossible to present any clear, definite and satisfactory evidence, but judging by the amount of stir visible throughout the country I would say that we are about the quietest country preparing for war that man could imagine. We seem to be in a deep sleep.
Instead of everything being all astir, instead of everybody being aware that we are getting ready to go somewhere, you would think that everybody was getting ready to go off on a holiday next week. That is the effect I have seen everywhere I have been in Canada. How in the world, with conditions like that obtaining throughout the country, can we have the phenomenal preparations for intercepting possible attacks as the minister assured us last year we had? I just cannot see that it is possible.
I must say that I am really worried about the situation, about the possibility of a lightning-like onslaught, something like what the Germans called a blitzkrieg-but this time it will be a blitzkrieg to the third or fourth power.
This afternoon the Prime Minister seemed to be a little aggrieved over the wording of the amendment moved by the opposition. He felt that it was not quite fair to suggest that His Excellency's advisers had failed to prepare adequately for the defence of Canada. He seemed to feel that they have not failed.
Let us examine the situation for a few minutes from the standpoint of the ordinary man in the street like myself who looks around the country and tries to form a conclusion from what he sees. Take milk, as an example. If there is one thing that Canada is eminently capable of producing, it is milk. I think there is probably only one other country in the British commonwealth that can produce milk to better advantage. What is happening in connection with milk? We are supposed to be in fine fettle for war; we are supposed to have plenty of supplies on hand. I noticed the following Canadian Press statement in the Ottawa Citizen of August 29, 1950;
DFC Claims Milk Shortage is Possibility
Toronto: Shortages of fresh milk in many Canadian cities during winter months may result from increasing competition of margarine with dairy products, the Dairy Fanners of Canada said yesterday.

In a brief to the conference of provincial ministers of agriculture, the council said a steady deterioration in the dairy situation would result in eventual milk shortages unless a ban were placed on the manufacture and sale of margarine.
The brief said butter takes about half the milk produced in Canada. If butter consumption decreased, the demand for milk would decrease proportionately. Less demand would mean smaller herds and the result would be shortage of fluid milk and higher prices in the low-yield winter months.
It may be said that is simply the working of natural forces, but if so they were natural forces which were brought into operation in large measure by this government. According to an article in the Ottawa Journal of the next day, August 30, 1950, the price of milk was to be increased one cent per quart on Friday. This has been referred to already today but let us refer to it again. This article reads:
The price of milk tb Ottawa consumers will go up one cent Friday, it was announced today.
Gordon Grier, president of the Ottawa valley milk producers, said a new agreement between local dairy farmers and distributors had been ratified by the Ontario milk control board, to be effective September 1.
It would mean Ottawa buyers would pay 19 cents a quart for milk on home delivery.
Reason for the increase, first since November of 1948, was given as increased cost of supplies, machinery, delivery equipment, dairy cattle, and feed, as well as increases recently granted to employees.
To local dairy farmers it would mean 15 cents more per hundred pounds of milk delivered at city plants-$4.20 instead of $4.05.
Consumer price adjustment would have to be made by the individual dairies, but it was presumed such products as buttermilk, chocolate milk, and other milk drinks would undergo a similar increase.
Well, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will ask, "What can we do about that? It is just a result of natural laws." Almost every one of these price increases is the direct result of governmental policy in this country. Increases in the cost of supplies, machinery, delivery equipment and so on, are all the result of governmental policy. And nothing in the world has been done to offset the adverse effects of the use of margarine on the dairy industry. The position of the dairy industry has always been more or less precarious, in my judgment, because of the fact that we have permitted so many of our choice dairy cattle to be taken to the United States. People will ask, "Well, how can you stop that?" If we really wanted to develop a dairy industry in Canada which would produce all the cheese our consumers could absorb, we would take steps to keep those good cows here, for they are just as valuable to us as to the people of the United States. Nothing is done, however, and you would think nothing could be done.

This is just a simple example of one thing. To the people of my constituency it is utterly incomprehensible that milk, which during the war was kept at a price of about 10 cents to the consumer, should now cost almost one hundred per cent more; and this in Canada, a land capable of literally flowing with milk and honey. Will anyone who faces facts try to argue that this indicates a proper discharge of the responsibilities of government? Something is terribly wrong somewhere; and the trouble is that the consumers, most of whom are existing in excruciating misery in an endeavour to make ends meet with their meagre incomes, are utterly bewildered and do not know what to do. I know many of them; I know their incomes, and I must confess that it remains an absolute mystery to me how they ever live. But it never seems to bother our government the slightest bit. This might as well be happening on the other side of the sun as far as the government are concerned. They think all is well, that there is no need to worry. They say, "Everything is fine; we are discharging our responsibility." I say conditions such as I have indicated are absolutely outrageous in a country like Canada.
Let us see what it means, Mr. Speaker. An average person should have a quart of milk a day, we are told; it is the best food anyone can have. In the case of a man, his wife and one child, if they are to have the milk they should have they must pay 57 cents a day or $17.10 a month. Just start figuring now. Then think of the cost of coal, which has been allowed to go up at an absolutely amazing rate. The price people must pay for coal is an utter scandal. It is $25 a ton right here in Ottawa, and that in a country where people must have coal. Rents have gone up and up until people are just sickened at the very thought of what they have to pay, and even at that in many cases they cannot get houses. Would anyone say conditions are such that the people have that calm confidence and equanimity which would fit them to enter into a war, and that the government has discharged its responsibilities for the defence of Canada? There must be some new way to use words if they can be made to mean the government has done all it should.
Now let us look at beef. Here again there are few countries on the face of the earth better equipped than Canada to produce this foodstuff, yet look at prices. They are so high that I imagine over sixty per cent of all the families in Canada have not tasted beef for a year. They just have not dared buy it. Even the price of lowly hamburger, to which people used to resort when they
The Address-Mr. Blackmore could not buy any other kind of meat, has gone up until it is impossible even to think about.


Mr. Hellyer:: What about horsemeat?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; we have talked of horsemeat and all that sort of thing. What does it indicate? All these things indicate something radically wrong with the brains of the people in charge of this country.


Mr. Hansell:: No horse sense.


John Horne Blackmore: No sense of any kind. At least horses have enough intelligence to go home when they are lost or out in a storm. These people do not have enough sense to do that. How are we going to get the price of beef down and keep it down? I represent a constituency in which beef is produced, and in which the production of beef could be increased many times. The men in my constituency are afraid to go into beef because costs are so high they fear that in a year or so prices will fall off two or three cents and they will be ruined. Will the government go to them and say, "We will enter into an agreement with you so that no matter what happens you will not be ruined"? Oh, no; that would require too much horse sense for this government. They say, "We could not undertake a thing like that". No; they will let the individual beef producer take the rap and shoulder the responsibility, while they take measures that force up his costs of production in every direction. That is a wonderful thing, isn't it? They cannot take the risk, but the beef producer can! Then we have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) telling the people-wise counsel, perhaps, but a real joke-not to get rid of their beef.


Mr. Gardiner:: The most difficult time I
had out there was when they thought I tried to keep the price of beef down.


John Horne Blackmore: That was because they
had to pay such a high price to bring the beef into their yards or on their farms that if the price went down to anything like what it should be they would be ruined. The minister knows that right well and so do I, so there is no use discussing it further. I have people very close to me who are producing beef. As a matter of fact I grew up with beef, and I know what it takes to produce it. I know the dangers the beef producers run.
The important thing is that in Canada the price of beef is out of sight and still we cannot get the needed production. The reason we cannot get an appropriate increase in production is that producers do not dare go into it because the government insists that they take all the risks.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not much risk in
producing beef right now.
Mr. .Blackmore: Well, I don't know; when I left my constituency last Saturday the price of beef had fallen off two cents as a result of the railway strike, and that meant stark ruin to practically two-thirds of the producers in that constituency. The minister knows what that would mean on a thousand-pound steer.


Mr. Whilman:: That drop has not reached us in Montreal yet.


John Horne Blackmore: I am telling you what
happened in my own constituency, and the beef is being produced there, not in Montreal.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: But the people of Montreal are eating it, or would like to.


John Horne Blackmore: We are concerned about getting production; that is what I am talking about, and I am telling what occurred in my constituency just last Saturday. Was there any attempt on the part of this government, which permitted the strike to come about, to do anything for the farmers who were going to lose everything they had put into their beef? Oh no, not a word about beef! Here we have the monstrosity of beef being so high people cannot buy it, and still the producers are fearful of going into production. Then, the Prime Minister wants us to believe that the government has discharged its responsibility in respect of getting us ready economically for the defence of Canada.
Let us now look at sugar. I happen to have quite a lot to do with sugar, because there are two large sugar factories in my constituency and another one is opening this year. Unfortunately, this is not due to any good work the government has done to encourage the development of that industry. Southern Alberta, Mr. Speaker, could be made the sugar bowl of Canada. Alberta, south of Calgary, can be made to produce all the sugar that Canada could possibly use, and could produce enough sugar so that we could supply great quantities of it to Britain and other needy countries during a war. Yet, in what condition do we find ourselves? During the last war we limited the consumption of sugar. In so far as I can gather we actually took sugar right out of Canada, took it away from the people. We had all sorts of stories about how cargoes of sugar were sunk by submarines, to encourage the people to deprive themselves of sugar.
What have we done since the last war in order to improve the situation? Nothing, nothing at all! What are we ready to do now? Nothing, nothing at all! We have allowed the price of sugar to go up seventy cents per hundred within the last week. There is


a magnificent contribution towards getting sugar for the people! Of course, the government will say, "Well, you have got to allow these industries to stand on their own feet." It would not be so bad having them stand on their own feet if the government and other agencies in the country would get off their back. To stand on their own feet, with all these people on their back, is quite a different matter. Canada is now able to produce, if she would only develop her capacity, far more than she needs in beet sugar alone. She actually is producing of beet sugar about one-quarter of her needs.
This afternoon we heard about the wonderful submarines the Russians are developing, and the great numbers of them. If we experienced trouble getting cargoes of sugar into Canada from some of the eastern islands during the last war, what do you suppose we shall have in this war? Yet the government acts as if nothing like that could occur. About the first month after war breaks out the government will discover something has gone wrong with the sugar supply. Then they will shake their hands and say, "What could we do about it?" "Who could have foreseen it?" Any fourteen-year-old boy in my constituency could foresee it.
We say we are ready for war, and that we have discharged our responsibility. Every member of this house saw what happened in the last war, as did every member in the government, in respect to sugar. Incidentally, I might just remind the government that when a sugar controller is appointed this time they should not select a man whose definite business is to destroy the beet sugar industry in Canada, and who has to be fought every inch of the way during the war to keep him from doing that. For goodness' sake select a man who wants to develop the sugar beet industry in Canada, and provide the people of Canada with sugar. In the last war, in 1942, we had a chance to put sugar factories in Canada which' would have been producing long before the war was over. Do you think we could get one of those sugar factories brought into Canada? No, not at all. Why? Because we had signed an illusory agreement in 1937 that we would not increase sugar production in Canada. We brilliant Canadians did a thing like that! I suppose that agreement is still in existence somewhere in the musty archives. Do we say this government has discharged its responsiblity? Whenever war is mentioned the first thing people worry about is sugar. We have not done a single thing to protect the sugar supply. The people who are able to buy sugar have bought it, and will continue to do so. The first thing we know, we shall have a shortage if war develops.

Under the conditions which exist today, in the light of the knowledge which has been placed before this house in this debate, there is apparently a ninety per cent chance that we are going to have war before very long. I would say it was a nine to one chance, and that is a very common-sense point of view. I believe there is a case to be made in support of the resolution of the leader of the opposition. As I have said already the government assumes far too little responsibility for helping the producers. We are still going on the assumption that the producers can stand on their own feet while the government stands not only on their backs but on the producers' feet as well. The government interferes with the producer in Canada today to such an extent that an ordinarily intelligent person would hardly believe it.
I have not the time to go into great detail, but let us consider wheat for a moment. The price of bread has risen one cent. What are we doing about wheat? My information is that the wheat producers in my constituency have been notified that they can deliver only eight bushels per acre. At this time, when the government is preparing for a war, that regulation is made! It is impossible for the men who made that ruling to conceive of the misery that they have thereby inflicted on the farmers. The price of lumber is higher than it has ever been, or than anyone ever dreamed it would be in Canada. The price of everything else the farmers would use to make a temporary bin, which in the end would be a dead loss to him, is so high that it almost means ruin to the farmer to attempt it, even if he could obtain the material. He is confronted with a harvest and yet all but eight bushels to the acre must be piled out on the stubble. Does the government accept the responsibility? Oh, no; the government cannot do that, but the farmer can! The farmer can meet all the vicissitudes of hailstorms, insects, droughts and every other type of hazard, the danger of falling prices and so forth. His shoulders are broad, so we will put all the responsibility upon him!
The situation confronting the farmers with whom I talked when I left my constituency was enough to put them into a state of despair. Of course the situation was aggravated by the strike, but let us bear in mind that even with the strike settled they will be delayed one week or ten days in securing cars to send their wheat out. To the average farmer that is a serious matter, because a great many farmers simply do not have the bins in which to take care of the crop.
This has been mentioned already, but can anyone conceive why the price of rubber had to go up? When the whole nation is moving
The Address-Mr. Blackmore on rubber wheels an increase in the price of rubber means an increase in the cost of production to every producer in the nation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was due to the price of crude.


John Horne Blackmore: We manufacture our own rubber in Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We do not use all synthetic.


John Horne Blackmore: Suppose we are not using all synthetic; if we want production in this country we shall have to be careful about the producer. But the producer seems to be the last one anybody ever thinks about at all. Surely a subsidy which brought down prices and made things tolerable during the war would do the same thing now. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) tells us that the government has discharged its responsibility in providing for the defence of Canada! Yet right through, when probably we are not more than two or three weeks away from war, all these things are being done to confound our producing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the producer getting for his cattle on the hoof in your district?


John Horne Blackmore: It is not a question of what he is getting for the animal. It is what he paid for the animal before he turned him in.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He did not pay
for him. Jle bred him. He is getting twenty-eight and a half cents.


John Horne Blackmore: The point is this, and if the hon. member knew one-half as much about the production of cattle as he knows about the Stampeders football team, he would understand it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have not learned what has happened to the football club lately.


John Horne Blackmore: If the producers breed the cattle, they are breeding them with a tremendous cost of production.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are making more money out of beef cattle today than they ever made before in the history of the country. Let us not have any doubt about that.


John Horne Blackmore: We are not saying they are not, because the price is high; but the point is this-and if the hon. member will listen he will hear someone who knows more about this than he does-if the price of cattle went off two or three cents a pound, it would ruin every man producing cattle.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Nonsense.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore


John Horne Blackmore: We will just leave the matter to be decided later. There is just no question about these things. The cost of feed-


Arthur Leroy Smith: If you take a one-thousand pound animal and take three cents off the price, you are still getting the biggest price you ever got.


John Horne Blackmore: It is not a matter of what the price is. It is a matter of what the cost of production was. Can the hon. member not see even that? The next matter is this. The government incessantly tells us that price control is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We will grant that under the British North America Act it is true that prices are a matter for provincial control. But the British North America Act does not refuse to allow the government to subsidize the provinces with enough money to enable them to take care of prices, just as the federal government itself did during the war. The Prime Minister laughs about that and thinks that it is a big joke; but the joke is going to be right on him just as sure as we are living. He thinks you cannot pay subsidies. But before he gets much further in public life in Canada he will discover a great many things about subsidies that he does not yet know.
We have got to a point today-and we cannot laugh this off; if we do, it is just evidence of great danger-where, if we are going to equalize the prices as between producer and consumer, we simply must use subsidies. If the provinces are going to take care of the matter of prices, they have got to have financial support from the central government which is able to give that financial support. That is all there is to it. It cost vast sums of money during the war to stabilize prices. We had the figures given, but I have not them at hand at the moment. It cost vast sums of money during the war to subsidize prices and keep the price structure stable, did it not? And the money was well spent. That has been granted time and again on the floor of the house and acknowledged by the ministers who had to do with it. The money will be just as well spent in that way today as it was during the war, because it will enable people to have something like stability, both as consumers and as producers. But there is no province that is able to supply the money that is necessary to maintain price stabilization similar to what was carried on during the war by the federal government. But the provinces could do it if they were supported by financial assistance from the federal government.


Mr. Sinnott:: Would the hon. member mind answering a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Not at all.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: How much was the wheat producer subsidized?


John Horne Blackmore: All during the war we had a considerable amount of wheat subsidy, did we not?


An hon. Member:: None at all.


John Horne Blackmore: As a matter of fact, the wheat producers subsidized the consumers all during the war.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is the point I wanted to get at.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. The Prime Minister shakes his head at the thought of the government subsidizing anybody, but he does not mind seeing the farmers subsidize the consumers in this country to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars. He does not worry about that at all! One of the reasons why we are having so much trouble is that there are so many people in responsible positions in our country who have never taken the trouble to think things right straight through so as to be consistent. The time has come for careful thinking right straight through and facing facts. If we do not do that, we are certainly going to fail to discharge our responsibilities to the country. If the government would offer to support the provinces financially in maintaining price stabilization, they would haye no difficulty at all with the constitution in this country.
I. now wish to deal just for a minute or two with the military aspects of our war effort. Thus far I have been dealing with the economic aspect. I make no pretence of being an authority of any kind with respect to war. In fact, I guess that I am probably a little bit better off if I do not know anything about wars in times past because we have to relearn everything for the war we are going to fight, apparently. I will tell you what effect the present military effort has on me. Our military effort gives me the same impression exactly as I had while we were in the "phony" war at the beginning of the last war. Everybody seemed to be living in a dense mist and groping. You remember, Mr. Speaker, the first six or eight months of that war? Then suddenly Germany hit us with the force of a catapult. We now seem to me to be in the midst of preparations for a phony war, or in the midst of a phony preparation. I hope I am entirely wrong.
At the beginning of the last war we had the assurance that all was well, that we were going to come through all right. It is true that we came through, but everybody knows how we did it!

Just let us face a few facts. What is the present Canadian force, counting every man who is trained and in uniform in Canada? What is that force in relation to Russia's colossal forces? It is pathetic. What is our present enlistment in relation to Russia's forces? Absolutely pathetic. We talk about the
12,000	who have applied to enlist. But what numbers should we have had apply if we are going to be prepared to fight a force like that of Russia? We have heard people say: Well, we cannot hope to fight Russia alone. No, we cannot. But if you have fifteen or sixteen countries, all as ill-prepared as we are, they will collectively have just about as much chance as we would have alone. That is just where the trouble is right now.
Get the facts and figures concerning the actual number of men the United States has today fit to go into the field. Then get the number that we have and the number that the other members of the so-called democracies-the free nations as we are pleased to call them-have, get the total number, put them all together and put them up against the power that Russia has!
Then, we are scattered all over the globe. I guess each of our associate nations is fighting a phony war like ourselves, and all offering the same excuses that we are offering. That is what I mean. I do not find any comfort in it at all. I do not want to be unduly harsh. I do not want to say anything that is unjustifiable.
I want to commend the Prime Minister for what he has done up to the present time. I think he has exercised admirable judgment in managing the country from the time this crisis occurred, but I would say this: For this country to be in the state of unpreparedness in which it is at the present time is a complete travesty. It is fantastic. With the manpower and the materials that we have in our country it is fantastic; that is all. With a nation the size of Russia, with the preparation she has, and everything we know about her, and the people that are guiding her, and the people who are following her, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) pointed out this afternoon, it is fantastic. I say it once more.
Let us bear in mind this, a thing I am sure every member of the government is aware of: There are about four fronts upon which Russia can strike, and it is evidence which I think supports the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the stand which he has taken. Canada is one of the major points, as we all know. Now, it would be brilliant to take all the fighting forces away from Canada and place them over there in Korea, would it not?
The Address-Mr. Knight I imagine the Russians would look upon that with the utmost complacency. There is Turkey Russia can strike, with the objective of going into Palestine and obtaining the oil east of Palestine, which I think we shall find is Russia's immediate objective, because her greatest need is oil, if I understand it aright.
Imagine getting all our forces concentrated in Korea while leaving that front exposed! There is western Europe, the importance of which Churchill has been trying desperately to impress upon us. His words have pretty well aroused the world to the seriousness of western Europe. Imagine taking all of Canada's forces and putting them in Korea, or in countries contiguous to Korea, and then having Russia make an attack on the western front! I wish that somebody who is able to think things through would give a talk to some of those United States extremists who are having so much to say! Meanwhile I think we are very fortuna-te that the government has been as wise as it has been in managing the war up to now; but nevertheless at the present time I have to indicate that I am not satisfied by any manner of means that the government in the absolute has come anywhere near discharging its responsibilities in respect of the defence of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I personally do not think it is desirable that this debate should end tonight. I do know one or two other hon. members who wish to speak in it. I confess that it has been with some difficulty that I have written a note or two and at the same time I have been trying to differentiate between the price of beef and the price that one pays for stockers, and other items that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) has been discussing. However, as he spoke I did manage to write down a note or two on which I should like to elaborate until at least eleven o'clock.
I have perhaps not added to my personal popularity in many quarters by that declaration but I must proceed. Mr. Speaker, I shall tender my congratulations first of all, as is usual, to those who moved and seconded the motion on the address. The custom of doing that is a pleasant convention for us here and perhaps a useful one, to the extent that it tends to promote personal harmony amongst those whose political convictions align them up on opposite sides of the house or more correctly in various political camps, who can yet, as we have proved, work together towards the common weal in a spirit of mutual tolerance and respect, in a spirit which is an essential condition to a successful democracy.

The Address-Mr. Knight
We were summoned here for this special session under circumstances of greatest import to this nation. We have emerged from the immediate domestic crisis, to the extent that our transportation system is again in full operation, into a period when negotiations will continue in an atmosphere which I think has been bettered considerably, and certainly has been cleared. It must be the hope of all of us that complete agreement may be speedily reached, and that there will not need to be invoked that element of compulsion in arbitration which most of us in the house would deplore.
The other domestic crisis, in addition to the rail strike, which I found engaging the minds of those at home with whom I talked was the inflation which has taken place in this country, and which is robbing the people of the purchasing power of such money as they have left to them, and is sending the cost of living in a steady spiral up; and just as steady is the rising demand that this government do something about it. If in our preoccupation with other matters we neglect this problem, we may wake up to realize that it has already attained proportions in which the whole economic equilibrium of the nation may be threatened.
In passing, let me say that most people with whom I had the opportunity to speak thought that there was sufficient justification in this problem and in the Korean crisis for the calling of parliament not just a few days ago, but many weeks ago; and it was felt that if parliament had been called, as in my opinion it should have been, in connection with the Korean situation, that the railroad strike either would not have occurred, or it would have been settled in a day or two as events later proved that it could have been, rather than that the whole country should have been kept as it was for a period of some ten days in uncertainty, suspense and economic danger.
With all these problems there has been an element of indecision and pussyfooting on the part of the government, a sort of wait-and-see attitude, a Micawber-like attitude of waiting until perchance something might turn up, which would do away with the necessity of clear and decisive action.
As to the Korean question, which is the next problem on my list, we must face the fact that there is in the minds of the people in our constituencies of all political groups some confusion, and indeed some misgiving. I think someone perhaps should attempt to analyse here the causes of some of those misgivings. I am glad that the Secretary of


State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said some things in his speech yesterday which should lessen the misgivings which I heard expressed.
Let me say to begin with that our own group in the House of Commons, and I think the vast majority of our followers in this country, favour the idea of group police action against any aggressor.
What are some of those misgivings which I have mentioned? One hears them among the people. What are they thinking about? What are they saying? What they are saying concerns each and every one of us. Let us not despise the opinions of minorities. They are the opinions of honest and sincere people seeking to emerge from the grey shadow of a partial conflict, of an uneasy cold war, hoping to emerge into the light of day, of peace, and hoping not to be enveloped by the dark clouds of a total war itself. They want peace. And let me hasten to add that I am not referring here to people in what are known as the various peace fronts, either the innocent or the sinister varieties. We must have peace, but it must be a peace which can be enjoyed by free men.
To get back to my misgivings: the greatest fear I have heard expressed by most people with whom I have talked has been the fear of the solidification of the antagonism widely held among Asiatics against outside interference of any kind, even of the United Nations. This antagonism can be attributed, among other things, to the failure of some nations to recognize the government of China at the time it should have been recognized, and before there was any question of duress, any question of making that recognition an element in a bargain. By failing to recognize that government-and recognition does not involve any love for its system-we have thrown to Stalin the free gift of a propaganda weapon, in the use of which he is showing considerable proficiency. By that I mean that he is now posing as the great defender of the Asiatic people, as their main advocate in the cause of recognition.
Let me say here-and this is only a personal view-that I am not sure in my own mind that what was morally right a year ago is morally wrong now. My Liberal friends across the way will not like that statement, since it implies that the government which they follow so assiduously made a mistake at that time. But let me remind them that it is not the first time my hon. friends on the Liberal side have made a mistake. That fact came vividly to my mind a few moments ago

as I sat and listened to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I remembered how my Liberal friends, and also my Progressive Conservative friends who sit to my right, applauded that speech to the echo tonight. That was the speech of a man whom a year or two ago, and particularly before the last election, they were characterizing openly as a communist while being a member of this group.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You don't mind my denying that, do you?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My friends perhaps did not make the direct accusation, but they allowed the few people who had that opinion to retain it and, so far as I know, did little or nothing to contradict it.
The second point to remember is that even liberation can involve tremendous tragedy for those native people when such liberation involves the use of large-scale bombing. The danger is that military action, if carried far enough, and used as the sole instrument of such liberation, may defeat its very purpose. I underline what many of my colleagues have said before, that military action must be accompanied by economic aid, by the raising of the standard of living of the Asiatic people, and by showing to them a sincere and genuine desire to help them, not in any selfish way but for the very sake of friendship. Otherwise those peoples may even by their free choice be prepared to barter their freedom for subsistence and to look askance at those whom, in their limited view, they may blame for the actual destruction.
I was glad to hear the minister's statement in regard to Formosa, and to learn that the two questions relating to Korea and Formosa are to be kept separate. The people are worried lest we fail to make that distinction in regard to those two places. I am glad we have a policy of our own in that connection. Let us back up the United Nations policy, the collective policy, by all means; but let us not become satellites of any other nation in regard to our views on that or any other question.
Many people-and I confess that in this at least I am one of them.-know with some chagrin that when we did decide to say, with a collective voice, "Thus far and no farther", and when we did decide to erect a limit and a dividing wall, Chiang Kai-shek was the first reactionary to crouch behind that wall and to claim its protection.
The last cause of danger I shall mention, or at least the last I shall draw to the attention of the house tonight, is the apparent lack of program of this government for the reha-
The Address-Mr. Knight bilitation and recovery of the Asiatic people generally-and I am not speaking particularly in this instance of Korea-and a rehabilitation from what the minister described yesterday as a swamp of poverty which, in his estimation, must be drained off if we are to have fertile fields in which democratic ideas may grow. The government is inclined to say a lot and to promise a lot. Perhaps like some of our good neighbours, they do not take their commitments seriously enough. They do not always fulfil them. In this instance I think it is vital that we make these commitments, and that we fulfil them in our own interests, if not for any more altruistic reason.
We have been told and we believe that we must be strong. It is a hard decision to make, with some of the beliefs we hold, when we realize that we may have again to resort to war for any cause or for any purpose. If the occasion arises we shall not shrink from it. We shall not shrink from it if it involves action on the part of the United Nations, to which we are pledged.
Under the circumstances in which we find ourselves we will have to expand our armed services. We must, too, expand our industrial plant, its capacity and production. We must decentralize industry as opportunity offers itself. Decentralization in these days of the atomic bomb must certainly be a necessity obvious to all. While we are doing these things which have a relation to war we must not neglect those things which have a relation to our own economic well-being. We must produce as much housing as possible; we must raise the morale of our people by eliminating injustices; we must not allow our social services, our educational services, our medical services or the scale on which we provide for our older people to become the first casualties of war, something which experience has shown to happen. This is a great task we have set for ourselves. It is the responsibility of this people; it is the responsibility of this government. It is a great task but one that Canada has proved in the past that she has the ability and the capacity to undertake.
I think we Canadians have of late cast off that inferiority complex with which we have been somewhat bedevilled perhaps through no fault of our own but rather as a consequence of our history. That inferiority complex has been to our disadvantage in connection with matters such as the creation of art and literature as well as in taking our place among the nations of the world. Both last year and this year we made moves which proclaimed to all the independence of this

The Address-Mr. Knight nation from other nations, but an independence which does not preclude association of the warmest and friendliest character with other nations of the commonwealth and, indeed with other nations of the world.
If the minister of immigration has anything to say I wish he would say it now as it rather annoys me to have him making signs without speech. I take it from his gestures that he is indicating that I still have five minutes to speak. Perhaps as I have been interrupted, Your Honour will allow me to call it eleven o'clock and thus put both the
minister and myself out of our misery at one stroke. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.