1950-09-04

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Monday, September 4, 1950, government notices of motions shall take precedence over the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of parliament.
My purpose in presenting this motion now is not to interfere with the debate on the address but to provide an opportunity for calling certain resolutions which are required as a preliminary to the introduction of government bills, so that the recommendation of the crown thereon may be expressed to the house at once. The motions that follow in each case will of course be that the house resolve itself into committee at the next sitting to consider these resolutions.
There seems to be some likelihood that the address will be disposed of in the course of the day. In that event, after disposing of questions and motions for production of papers, it would be the next order of business to have these resolutions considered so that the house may have them before it for its attention.


Mr. Drew:: It seems to me that this is not the stage at which this motion should properly come forward for consideration. It is among government notices of motions on page 9 of the order paper. I think we should follow the regular procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: I may say to the leader of the opposition that last year I considered this same question, and it then seemed to me, as he says, that such a motion should be considered at a later time. But under citation 132 in Beauchesne's second edition I notice the following:
The motions allowed on routine proceedings are motions relating to the business of the house and for the discussion of reports from committees.
This motion definitely relates to the business of the house and should therefore be considered at this time. I think the misunderstanding arises from the fact that such motions generally appear under government notices of motions1. Actually, however, they 69262-13J
are not government notices of motions in the usual sense. In view of the citation which I have mentioned in Beauchesne's second edition, and of the practice which has been established, I think the motion should be considered now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that sums not exceeding $142,200,200 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying expenses of the naval, army and air services of the Canadian forces;
That His Majesty may also incur commitments during the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March. 1951, for expenditures on the naval, army and air services of the Canadian forces in later years in amounts not exceeding $409,257,821 in addition to the total amount of such commitments specified in the schedule to the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1950;
Resolved also, that commitments not exceeding $5,310,000 in addition to the amount of commitments specified in the schedule to the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1950, may be incurred during the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure on defence research and development in later years, and also that sums not exceeding $2,000,000 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund to His Majesty towards defraying the expenses for the land services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in addition to any other grant of parliament;
And resolved further, that sums not exceeding $300,000,000 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund to His Majesty, in addition to any other grants of parliament, for the production, acquisition, repair and provision of equipment, services, supplies and facilities, for the use of the defence forces of Canada and those of any party to the North Atlantic treaty, and the construction, improvement and repair of facilities, and the acquisition, processing, and storage of materials, supplies and equipment, required to produce and otherwise make available any such equipment, supplies, services and facilities;
With provision also empowering the governor in council to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of $300,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying the aforesaid expenses, the principal and interes* of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the



'196 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Proposed Legislation
subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
. PROVISION FOR PLACING FORCES ON ACTIVE SERVICE
Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into . committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Canadian forces-
1.	Amending the National Defence Act to provide that the government in council may establish and authorize the maintenance of active service forces and may place the Canadian forces on active service
*' in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations charter, the North Atlantic treaty or any other similar instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada;
2.	Excepting certain personnel from the application of the Militia Pension Act; and
3.	Providing for the extension of benefits of certain legislation applicable to veterans of the second world war to veterans of forces designated as special forces.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to authorize the governor in council to take action to avert possible disruption of defence preparations requisite for the safeguarding of national security and to assist the United Nations in accordance with Canada's obligations; also to prevent economic disorder and hardship on a national scale; with authority to appoint and fix the remuneration and expense of assistants and advisers to the minister.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask'the Prime Minister a ques-

tion with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the motion presented this morning by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)? The question is this: In view of the fact that this method of dealing with appropriations of this kind seems to be similar to the practice followed in connection with the war appropriation bills during world war II, will the government also follow the practice of giving us a break-down of the various items in the defence appropriation resolution? As I recall, that is the practice that was followed during the last war.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no doubt that full information will be given to the house on these matters. Whether or not the house will wish to have a fuller discussion on the resolution, or will prefer to pass the resolution and have the matter discussed on the bill itself, when hon. members will have it in their possession, is something to which further consideration can be given.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? As one who was here at the time, my recollection is that when we were in committee discussing the resolution the minister gave us a mimeographed sheet on which there was a suggested break-down. It was understood that the break-down thus indicated would not be followed in every particular, but we did have something that gave us a sort of guide as to what we would be appropriating for various purposes. If we could get such a mimeographed sheet in committee on the resolution it would be much more satisfactory.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might add a word to what the Prime Minister said. The appropriation, so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, is in essence a supplementary estimate to vote 202 of the main estimates, which was a schedule to the Appropriation Act passed last June. I have no doubt that my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will endeavour to have a detailed break-down, as has been suggested, and it probably could be available before the house is considering the resolution in committee.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Saturday, September 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Charles Cannon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's

request, and I believe in view of the general feeling of the house, that this debate should not be too long delayed, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks in the smallest possible compass.
During the last two sessions a good deal of time was spent on the question of Canada being recognized as a nation. Legislation to this end was passed, and there was much discussion of the matter. Excellent speeches were made by hon. members congratulating Canada on becoming a nation. Like many other hon. members, I was glad to find that Canada was a nation. But nationhood implies obligations-obligations	for defence and
obligations to see to it that its commitments to other nations are carried out.
As all hon. members are aware, Canada joined with other nations in the United Nations charter. As I understand it, under the United Nations charter, member nations are not compelled to but are under obligation to come to the assistance of member states in the event of aggression, and indeed to contribute force to resist aggression if aggression has been declared by the security council. This is not a compellable obligation, but it certainly is expected of member states.
There is no question that the government expected there would be trouble in Korea, because in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the booklet "Canada and the Korean Crisis", issued by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the following appears:
While this act of open aggression came as a surprise, the existence along the 38th parallel of a situation which constituted a threat to peace was known to the United Nations.
Therefore I ask, should not Canada have been prepared to undertake her obligations under the United Nations charter? What would have been the situation if, instead of Korea being attacked, Norway had been attacked? Norway is one of the members of the Atlantic charter along with Canada. It might very well have been Norway that had been attacked and not Korea. Would Canada have been in a better position to resist aggression in Norway? Indeed, would Canada have been in a position to resist an attack on Canada itself?
The party of which I have the honour to be a member has been termed a war party. That is absolutely untrue. This party is a party of preparedness. It believes that Canada must be prepared to defend itself and to fulfil its obligations to the other members of the free nations of the world.
In the light of the information given by my leader as to the strength of the Russian army, and of the illuminating remarks of
The Address-Mr. Higgins the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr., Harkness) as to Canada's military strength, do hon. members now believe that Canada is in a position to resist an attack on Canada itself?	:
All this information must have been available to the government. What has been done about it? I realize, as do all hon. members,' the limited resources of this country. I realize fully our limited population. But could not better use have been made of the money that was expended by this country for defence purposes? I am not going to labour the question; it speaks for itself, but I will, read to the house an important paragraph from my leader's remarks on September 1, when he said, as reported at page 113 of Hansard:
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.*
And he concluded that paragraph with' these words:	*
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.
Well, the only comment I would make- and these are my concluding remarks-will1 be found in the words used recently by a top-' ranking member of the Republican party in the United States:	f
I don't care how many figures the administration produces; the people won't get over it. Something, went haywire somewhere. They had the money. Where are the guns and tanks and planes? That, is what they are asking, and they don't want any' mealy-mouthed answers.	,


Mr. W. C. Thomson (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,* I have listened with a great deal of interest to1 the debate in reply to the speech from the1 throne. I congratulate the mover (Mr.' Cannon), and the seconder (Mr. Bennett), as well as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), upon their, contributions to the debate.
Let me say at once that I have absolute, confidence, as have my colleagues, in both, those ministers. We have faith in their integrity, their ability and their loyalty to Canada. Anyone who says otherwise does a disservice to Canada, anyone who attempts to drag these men into the open-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Cover it up.

The Address-Mr. Thomson


Mr. Cleaver:: Wait until the sentence is finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Truth will out.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: We have always read that the loud laugh speaks the vacant mind-to have them come into the open and tell of things that would be of comfort and use to the enemy-


An hon. Member:: That won't do.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: One of the most recent speakers said he was of the party of preparedness, and the suggestion is that we are not. The fact is that we are. Look at the record. One of the worthy members of that party has suggested that we wait for conscription. He has suggested that we do not give the boys of our land the privilege of volunteering, which is the greatest privilege given to any man.
I have listened to these experts on war who have attacked our party. Most of them were soldiers, as I was, and some were lawyers, as I am. In those respects they are similar to me, and, like me, they know very little about war. Consequently I feel that in looking at this matter I can look at it as a proven citizen of the Dominion of Canada who fears nothing from them and who can stand on equal ground with any of them.
I have great admiration for the valour and honour of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), but I noticed that occasionally in his speech, as the rest of us do sometimes, he became inconsistent. He said that when the cruisers left Vancouver he felt we were unguarded, because they were a trained force, and in the same breath he said that we should have sent our trained force of military men to Korea. On the one hand the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) said he knew nothing about what was going on in connection with defence expenditures, and in the next breath he said that we are spending unwisely. How could he know what we were doing with defence expenditures if he knew nothing about what was going on? Through the whole thing is a complete pattern of contradiction. I see it as an attack, as an attempt by that party in the opposition to regain ground lost in the debate on railways which preceded this one. They lost there, and by dumb show and noise they are attempting to regain their position-a position which, in the light of history and the record of the Liberal party, can never be regained.
Let us get on with the debate. Let us understand that we are all for Canada and with


Canada. We are here to do a job in an emergency session to carry out a purpose. Let us carry it out faithfully, giving no comfort to the enemy, trusting the cabinet of the elected party of the people to do wisely in the interests of this great country.
Our loyalty is beyond all question. Our faithfulness cannot be questioned, and anyone who slanders the party in power today slanders the vote, the choice and the faith of the Canadian people. Let us do our job as we are intended to do it. Let us do right, as God has taught us to know the right, and Canada will emerge from this crisis as conclusively and as gloriously as she has emerged from other days of tribulation. (Translation):


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the address in reply (Mr. Cannon) has performed his task with eloquence and skill. In his interesting speech, he said about the railway strike that it was more pressing to settle our own affairs than to restore peace elsewhere. Our first duty is indeed to the citizens of this country.
The charitable dispositions with which our leaders seem to be overflowing lately should first of all be applied to Canada. It is all very well to fulfil our undertakings, but we must show restraint. Let us be cautious and especially avoid being overzealous. The seriousness of the international situation makes it doubly imperative.
At the outset of the Korean crisis the government seemed disposed to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Then they announced that three destroyers had been put at the disposal of the United Nations; later they sent a few planes to help transport the troops. Finally, in order to satisfy public opinion which had been thwarted and misrepresented by a loud press campaign, a volunteer brigade was formed. Our people are anxiously wondering where this is leading to.
They know only too well that the voluntary system is but the prelude to that dire course called conscription.
Conditions will undoubtedly force the government to impose compulsory service, as the wars of the past have fully shown us.
That is why I believe I can truthfully state that our latest military venture in Korea is opposed not only by large numbers of excellent and worthy citizens, English, French and new Canadians, but also by people practically everywhere in the county I have the honour to represent in this house, as well as in the other ridings of the country. It is the voice of that important body of our population that I want to interpret today.

Patriotism, bravery, courage and altruism are not the exclusive prerogative of the war propagandists and those who listen to them.
I know many young people, fathers and mothers, who would be willing to lay down their lives for the defence of our country. I happen to know many veterans who have already proved themselves capable of heroism and devotion and who would gladly take up arms to repel an invader, but who will not join the United Nations punitive expeditions to the ends of the earth.
Because of air transport, it seems that some of our politicians and newspapermen have lost count of distances and at the same time have lost all sense of patriotism and even all common sense.
Let those who would send us to war, who write or vote accordingly, be the first ones to go. Let them set an example. They might be able by themselves to form another volunteer brigade.
Let no one misconstrue my stand. I am prepared to make every sacrifice for the defence of my country, in order to protect our territorial integrity, to preserve our freedom and to secure a happy life for my fellow citizens, but before sending our youth to graves in distant lands I think I am justified in wondering whether the chance is worth trying and whether the rewards will be worthy of the sacrifice.
By virtue of what protocol, law or agreement is Canada required to assume, in international affairs, more responsibilities than the countries of South America, than India or Turkey?
What are to be the limits to our contribution? Are we to become involved in all conflicts between the followers of the U.S.S.R. and those of the United States? Are we to fight until the last communist has been exterminated from our planet? How long will our foreign policy remain vague, lame and servile?
In a pamphlet entitled "Peace or War", published in 1945 by the information board of Canada, I find the following statement:
In the space of one generation, man has seen two world wars fall upon nations, so that war now has for him tragic implications. Modern inventions, such as the rocket-bomb or the atomic bomb, have upset him and he is horrified at the prospect of a new war which would rend the world and annihilate the human race.
It is not only a question of preserving peace; man must build a world and protect It. There is but one choice:	war or the preservation of
humanity. We have chosen to save the world.
The Address-Mr. Gagnon
It was for that purpose that United Nations representatives assembled at San Francisco and laid the foundations of an international organization aimed at preserving future generations from the scourge of war. To ensure the success of their work they pooled the hopes, efforts and plans of their respective countries and endowed the world with the United Nations charter.
Contained in the provisions of this charter are the principles that govern the various political, economic and social systems in the world of today. In spite of its flaws, it represents the will of nations determined to preserve peace and, above all, it shows ways and means of saving our civilization.
But the charter alone cannot ensure peace for mankind. To achieve its purpose, it must rely on the help and support of all the united nations and human beings that make up these nations. We must all, men and women alike, show our good will and work for the maintenance of peace.
We have the means. Let us make good use of them.
Here are some of them:
To promote mutual understanding rather than misunderstanding.
To seek the factors of unity and cast aside elements of discord.
That was published in 1945:
Saving the world, maintaining peace, these long forgotten ideals.
It is wise to recall, on the verge of a third world war, what the price of the second world war was:
British commonwealth of nations (to May 31, 1945), 434,885 dead or missing and 468,388 wounded; United States (to August 15, 1945), 296,352 dead or missing and 651,168 wounded; U.S.S.R. (to V-E day), from 12 to 15 million dead (civilians and service personnel).
These statistics cover part only of actual casualties.
It is estimated that several years will be needed to give a complete account of the ruins accumulated by war. A few examples will give an idea of the scope of the disaster:
In Greece, from April 1941 to March 1944, 1,085 towns and villages were destroyed. In Great Britain, a third of the houses were damaged or wiped out by bombs. In Holland, at least five years will be needed to redevelop areas submerged by the sea. In Belgium, damage caused to railways alone amounts to more than $50 million. In the U.S.S.R., 71,700 cities and towns were destroyed.
"As for expenses" they have reached almost astronomical figures. In Canada, they amounted to more than $15 billion as of March 31, 1945. It is estimated that with this amount one out of every two Canadian families could have bought an $8,000 house or spent $200 on maintenance and repairs while every family could have bought:
an automobile	worth	$1,000a refrigerator	"	
200a washing machine	"	
150a radio	"	
100a vacuum cleaner	"	
50a sewing machine	"	
100a cooking-stove	"	
150and furniture	"	
200
The Address-Mr. Gagnon
The war of 1914 was to be the last one. The leaders, at that time, promised that the war would solve, once and for all, the problems that had disrupted the world and that it would secure lasting peace.
The great slaughter of 1939 was undertaken in the name of freedom, civilization and Christianity, against fascism, Hitlerism and barbarism in order to protect the integrity of the Polish territory. Alas! What fine things we have seen.
When in 1939 Finland was fighting against Russia, for her freedom and survival, the allies, well aware of the heroic past of this small nation, were filled with admiration and Churchill exclaimed: "The service rendered by Finland to humanity is magnificent."
That country had the sympathy of all those who recognize true patriotism and our leaders were anxious to go to her assistance.
When Hitler declared war on Moscow and Russia became our ally, nations that had applauded Finland's glorious feats turned against her because she wanted to remain neutral, after being devastated, battered and vanquished.
She was then considered an enemy of freedom and a traitor to her past. The allies sided with the lion against the slaughtered lamb.
Victory was to witness the triumph of all our prized principles. It was to mean paradise on earth with jobs for all and a home for every soldier. All that had been promised to soldiers in the front line and to civilians on the home front. We know how those illusions and promises turned out.
The Canadian people are still burdened with debts of the last war, and more than ever at grips with inflation which gradually eats up their savings, and with the increasing cost of living which ruins them.
Today we are crusading against communism. We are said to be fighting with guns and munitions a decisive engagement against subversive ideas. On decks of cruisers as well as in the air we are fighting false ideologies. In the name of liberty, civilians are being slaughtered, women and children are being killed in Korea. In the name of liberty we are being reduced to slavery.
What a fiendish and murderous hoax.
We are siding with the South Koreans in their civil war against the North Koreans and the setting up of a communistic regime, while the Franco regime is being refused recognition and support, even though it was and still

is in Spain a stronghold against the servile followers of Moscow and remains in Europe the bulwark of free nations.
We seek to unite our efforts with all those who wage war against communism and at the same time, we neglect one of the best allies we may have on our side, the Vatican,
Here is what The Ensign, on June 17, 1950, wrote in this connection:
(Text):
Frantic efforts are now being made by the statesmen of the still free world to rally in defence against the continuing encroachments of communist persecution. To mobilize arms, to increase Canada's expenditures for military defence, to strain all material efforts of a young country while at the same time refusing to co-operate with other older and experienced nations, engaged in the same task of drawing upon every available moral and spiritual influence, to wit the Vatican, is not a sign of mature judgment. Only when all that is useful is being done can all that is necessary be asked in effort and sacrifice from the people.
(Translation):
The Toronto Telegram, in turn, indicated its point of view in the following terms:
(Text):
There are purely selfish reasons why Canada should follow the example of London and Washington. The Vatican and the Roman Catholic congregation have been one of the great bulwarks against the spread of communism. The Vatican maintains an alert and efficient diplomatic corps. It consequently provides a listening post where a Canadian minister would get vital information relating to international development undiluted and, frequently, in advance of its arrival in other capitals. The "cold war" having reached the stage it has, Ottawa should name a minister without delay. The Roman Catholic church has been a militant leader in the fight against communism. Acknowledging this, it is not difficult to see in the appointment of a Canadian representative to the Vatican an importance beyond the immediate advantage to our foreign service.
(Translation):
Although the frantic and slanted propaganda of the government is attempting to make the people believe the contrary we are not obliged, as members of the United Nations, to supply military forces to repel an aggression, should an aggression occur, which is far from being proved in this case. On the other hand, article 1 of the Atlantic pact states that the signatory nations agree to settle by peaceful means any international conflict in which they may become involved.
(Text):
In an article written by Dorothy Thompson, and published in the Montreal Gazette of September 1, there is the following:
But assuming that there were a United Nations obligation to enforce its own decrees, how, logically, should they be enforced? If they are to be enforced,

as presently provided, only by the voluntary diversion of the armed forces of member states, these forces will be granted or withheld according to the situation of the states involved. Laying aside Mr. Nehru's views on the Asian situation, a government faced with the possibility of war over Kashmir is unlikely to divert substantial forces to Korea; or France, with only five divisions to face the explosive German situation; or Sweden, in imminent danger in the Baltic; or Yugoslavia, walking a tight rope in the Balkans; or Turkey, sitting precariously at the Dardanelles. Russia holds the initiative and, despite abstract idealism, wise government limit their actions to their military capacities, and give priority to home defence.
Thus, if United Nations decrees can be enforced only by the diversion of home and regional forces, these are either withheld or a dozen places weakened in behalf of one-the aggressors picking the one. United Nations decrees could only logically be enforced by a separate police force, responsible to the United Nations, paid out of United Nations budget and composed, like most air forces, entirely, of volunteers, attracted by their allegiance to the United Nations, by high pay and by the conviction that, equipped with the finest modern weapons and kept in a high state of mobility, they would hold the balance on behalf of law and order. The absence of such a force, together with the presence of sanctions whose application is not compulsory, reveals a fundamental United Nations weakness.
The United Nation is a ramshackle organization, without clear definitions and without compulsory sanctions. It cannot enforce anything. It is therefore a more favourable instrument for aggressors, who know exactly its limitations, than for abstract idealists willing to risk their peoples in behalf of a non-existent law of nations. The dreadful thing is that there is no national opposition not tainted by pro-Russian sympathies, or afraid of being so accused if it raises such fundamental questions. There is a sense of being pulled into the unknown by an enemy who leads friends and adversaries alike as puppets on a string while there is no one, of proved patriotism and intellectual and moral power, to. whom the people can turn.
(Translation):
If on the pretext of policing the world for the United Nations we undertake to defend all the countries which are not in a position to oppose Russia victoriously, we shall scatter our forces practically everywhere on the face of the earth and when our own land is directly threatened we shall have no more soldiers or not enough to defend our shores effectively.
A few years ago the Canadian government took orders from Great Britain; today they take them from our neighbours. Thus our external policy is still determined by the leaders of other nations who compel us to imitate their least gesture and to play the part of the frog that wanted to become larger than the bull.
Canada puts herself today in the position of a vassal state awaiting instructions from a power whose authority rests with the United States . . .
These words are taken from Le Soleil, organ of the Liberal party, of June 30 last, which adds:
That syndicate of the United Nations would represent a moral authority if it were really dedicated to the defence of right and justice.
The Address-Mr. Gagnon Unfortunately for the world, the United Nations were never really united in purpose or brotherhood. They are split in two camps whose material interests are incompatible. And that conflict of interests has become irreconcilable because Washington and Moscow can no longer trust each other. A moral authority infinitely higher than that of these two materialistic powers considers them both untrustworthy, even though it dreads more the ungodly aspect of the communist doctrine.
It is under those uncertain conditions that Canada stands ready to take sides in a civil war where Russia takes advantage of the xenophobia of a yellow race to add to the difficulties of the Anglo-American alliance. The immediate cause of that fratricidal conflict is the deliberate mistake which was made by Russia and the United States because they thought it profitable to divide a country once united into two republics separated by a border arbitrarily set to suit the political advantage of their so-called protectors.
In addition to peace considerations and political reasons for which the Canadian people should be induced to refrain from interfering in that intricate matter, there is the risk of a break, in principle, between the nations of the commonwealth. India and Pakistan do not want white people to delay full emancipation of Asia. Even if London overlooks that respectable view, Canada should endeavour to keep on friendly terms with two countries whose liberation from all British domination she once cheered. Should that consideration be disregarded, the peace of mind of all Canadians who want to escape the intrique of foreign politics will be disturbed.
Pandit Nehru, head of a government with socialistic trends, declined to take part in the Korean conflict; that, however, did not prevent him from protecting himself against
70.000	Hindu communists, of whom 3,000 to
4.000	have been jailed. Gandhi's successor summons up all his energy to fight mainly misery and starvation.
Prosperity, indeed, is the foe of communism. As I have stated before in this house, the magic formula that will set up an unyielding bulwark against communism is the abundance of goods and the elimination of poverty.
Employment, housing, fair wages, markets and reasonable prices for farm products, social order and industrial peace strongly established, respect for and compliance with civil and religious laws, triumph of love and order over hatred and anarchy, such, in my opinion, make up the peaceful way the democracies must choose for survival.
Did the last war improve the lot of humanity? Are we happier than we were? No, war has settled nothing and the one now starting, no matter how cruel and prolonged it may be, will bring no better results.
On July 26, in a new encyclical letter, the Pope stated that:
War brings nothing but ruin, death and misery of all sorts.
We are once again asked to uphold democracy and freedom. We must not forget, how-
202	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles ever, that war deprives us of both and that we must resort to the dictatorial tactics of our enemy to fight on equal grounds. Controls and orders in council, which plagued us from 1939 to 1945, are standard methods used by dictators to crush the will of free people and turn them into a vast herd of slaves.
The Korean situation has brought about profiteering; the price of essential goods is rapidly increasing, hoarders are happy and so are the munitions manufacturers. Again we have false and artificial prosperity. The harder the war, the more blood will be shed and the more jackals will thrive. Some people must die to guarantee the well-being of others. The government is on the alert. Let us beware; crimes perpetrated in the name of freedom will produce bitter results.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has indicated that military preparations will cost the Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is surprising that our government can find so easily and so quickly all the money they need for war activities, while it seems to be so difficult for them to find some when they are asked for a more generous pension for the aged, grants essential to the construction of wharfs and public buildings, and relief from taxation.
I wish to recall what the Right Hon. Mackenzie King said in this house on March 30, 1932:
(Text) :
Canada is not a country of unlimited powers: it has not the capacity to stand indefinite strains. We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in caring for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provisions for Canada's defence and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible. There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must to a greater or less extent choose between keeping our own house in order, and trying to save Europe and Asia . . .
The decisive test which faces both democracies and dictatorships is the task that faces them at home.
(Translation):
The late Mr. Lapointe, who was then minister of justice, said on the same day:
The time to send expeditionary forces is past.
With these observations, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to repeat some of the things that I said in June of this year in connection with the international situation, so as to make the position I take, and the emphasis I want to make, perfectly clear.


It so happened that when the Korean crisis broke last June both the leader and deputy leader of this group were absent from Ottawa. The leader was in western Canada, and the deputy leader was in Geneva in connection with meetings of the international labour organization. In that situation the members of this group asked me to speak on their behalf so far as it was necessary to state our position here in parliament in connection with the Korean situation. The result was that on three separate occasions during the last week of the last session I made brief remarks concerning this matter.
I do not intend to repeat all that I said at that time, but I should like to read two or three excerpts from the remarks I made on Thursday, June 29, as recorded in Hansard at pages 4385 and 4386. I opened with these words:
Mr. Chairman, following the remarks made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs I made a very brief statement. However as I look It over In Hansard I realize that within the space of a sentence or two I did express the views which we in this group hold with respect to the present situation. The emphasis I urged yesterday-and I repeat it today

is our complete support of the principles of collective security, and our readiness to carry our support of that principle into all it may involve.
Then followed a paragraph in which I expressed our satisfaction that the security council had met quickly to deal with the situation in Korea, after which I went on to say this:
May I say again that we regard the keeping in repair of the principle and machinery of collective security as the most important task facing us at this time of crisis. If there were a conflict between just two powers, no matter how that conflict came out, it would not guarantee the future peace of the world. Even collective security cannot guarantee peace absolutely, but it has an infinitely better chance than can be achieved by the victory of one power over another.
In the concluding paragraph of that speech I said:
I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs is right when he says that the government has the concurrence of all the groups in this house in its readiness to support the action taken, by the United Nations. That is clearly our obligation, and that way alone lies hope. If we can deal with this present crisis on that basis and demonstrate the effectiveness of collective action for peace, we may yet achieve much more in that direction that at times we have dared to hope.
I pointed out earlier in that speech that my support of the principle of collective security was not something new, but that I had made it clear a number of times, particularly in a speech in this house on March 26, 1945. At that time we were discussing the sending of a Canadian delegation to the conference at San Francisco which was to set up the United Nations, and I asserted then that in my view we had to have the kind of international

organization which could enact international law, and that it had to have authority to enforce that law. My support, therefore, of the principle of collective security in this crisis is based on two premises. On the one hand, there is the obvious fact that we must resist and stop aggression, or perish. The other point is that it is extremely important that we should move in the direction of the rule of law in world affairs. For all the faults of the United Nations, and for all the blunders that the United Nations may have made, I feel that we have had, in the collective decision taken by the security council, a move in that direction. I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that that view which I had the privilege of expressing on behalf of this group here in the House of Commons last June has since been endorsed and confirmed by our party at a national convention which was held in the city of Vancouver in July of this year.
I have taken these few minutes, sir, to spell out that position in order to make it crystal clear that we in this movement know precisely where we stand when aggression is committed. It must be resisted; it must be stopped. We know where we stand with regard to the rule of law in international affairs. But we also take the position-and this is the point on which I wish to lay emphasis-that unless we accompany the military action that we are prepared to support in order to resist aggression with other measures such as those which have been suggested time and again by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, measures which we have called for down through the years, I submit that the money we shall spend and the lives that will be lost, sad to say, will be in the position of having "gone down the drain". Unless we accompany our military action with a positive effort to develop underdeveloped countries and to persuade the people, particularly those in Asia as well as those in other parts of the world, that we in the democratic world really have something better than what is being proclaimed to them from the other side, we can win the war so far as military action is concerned, but we can lose the whole struggle in which we are engaged for a better and a more secure world for humankind.
I know that emphasis is placed on this point not only 'by those of us in this group but by others. One hears it in radio speeches every week. One reads it in newspaper and magazine articles by a great many people; and as I have already indicated, one hears it in this House of Commons, as well as outside of parliament, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But what is this country doing about it other than applauding the fine statements that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made? We have before us now, on the order paper, measures 60269-14J
The Address-Mr. Knowles which the government proposes to take to meet this aggression. But in those measures I see nothing that supports the strong statements that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made when he agrees with us that military action is necessary-let there be no doubt about that-but that military action alone is not enough.
Let me put on the record again-because I agree with them, and because I feel they should be backed up with action, with measures, with money voted by this house- some of the things which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said. I quote from page 90 of Hansard of August 31:
These other weapons,-
He is talking about the weapons of the communists.
-or many of them, are insidious and hard to counter. Often they work underground and in the dark; indeed sometimes they work best when they are driven underground. They can be met and overcome, as indeed they are being overcome, by the initiative of the free world in many places, notably in western Europe; but they cannot be defeated by military action alone. Military strength is absolutely necessary, of course, but it must be supplemented by imaginative economic and social programs if the march of communism as a social and economic doctrine is to be halted before it reaches a point at which a military attack will commend itself to the members of the politburo as likely to succeed.
I applauded that statement when the minister made it, andi I applaud it again. But where are these imaginative economic and social programs which he admits must accompany 'military action if we are to halt the spread' of communism? He said later-and I quote from page 91 of Hansard:
We in the west, while laying bare the trickery and malice of soviet protestations, must at the same time provide some real satisfaction for those everlasting hungers for bread, security and freedom to which the communists pretend to cater. Otherwise we shall not secure the support of those in many parts of the world, and particularly in Asia, on whose co-operation we must rely in the days ahead.
I fully agree, Mr. Speaker. But we now have 'before us proposals asking for what amounts to nearly a billion dollars. None of it is for economic development or for economic aid to underdeveloped countries. None of it backs up the minister's own contention that we must, at this time, accompany necessary military action with these other measures. I realize that, after previous wars, particularly the two in our time, we have said that the next time we will do it better, if there has to be a next time. But always when the next time comes we say that once this immediate task, the military problem, is over, then we will get down to these economic and social matters. The minister is perfectly right. It is not a case of getting around to these economic and
a04	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles social objectives after the military action is over. The economic and social objectives must accompany military action or it may be too late after it is all over. Now is the time that we have got to convince both the people whose cause we are defending iti Asia and other parts of the world-and our own people-that our idea with regard to economic and social organization is really and unquestionably the better one, as I believe it to be, even with all the improvements we need here at home.
We have all been disturbed by the vague answers to questions as to objectives, in Korea and in Asia, that have been put to those in high places. The answers of various military leaders have shown a lack of appreciation of what was meant. There is real point, I submit, in statements that have been made by some of our church leaders. For example, I think of the questions being asked in a current issue of the United Church Observer as to the aims of our fighting in Korea. There seems to be a tendency on the part of the government to feel that because a war is being fought, other questions should be held over until later. The (Secretary of State for External Affairs knows *-he has said it clearly-that that is not so. He said it when there was no conflict and he was able to speak academically, but he has said it now in the midst of a serious conflict- that unless we accompany necessary military action with these other measures we can lose the very struggle in which we are engaged, namely, the struggle for a free world in which people can satisfy their everlasting desire for peace and bread and freedom. I agree, but let us do something about it.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said again on page 96:
Furthermore, just as we have learned slowly and painfully the dangers of great economic gulfs betweens various sections of our own country, now we must begin to learn the parallel lesson that it is dangerous to let such gulfs exist between various countries without doing anything to try to narrow them.
Please note: this is not a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a time of peace when he could utter words as in a vacuum; this is a statement made in this house on August 31, when men are dying on the battlefront in Korea. And I quite agree with the position he takes. He continues:
That effort must be spread over many generations; but a start should be made, and now a start is being made.
I dared to hope from that little sentence- his words that a start is now being made- that when the government's measures in


relation to the international situation reached the order paper there would be in them at least some measure of economic aid for underdeveloped countries. But no; it is not there- not a nickel. I go on with the quotation:
For just as it is impossible to have a healthy society in any one country if some individuals are living below the level of subsistence, so it is impossible to have a healthy world society when whole nations are subject to starvation and disease. Throughout large areas of Asia, such conditions now exist. Where they exist, they are natural breeding grounds for communism. These malarial swamps of poverty must somehow be drained off if we are ever to see stability and freedom in the new Asian countries. And if we do not see stability and freedom there, we may find difficulty in maintaining them in other parts of the world.
The whole burden of my speech is that I agree one hundred per cent with the statements that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made, but I am looking for something on the order paper to back up his contention that the time to bring forward these other measures, other than the necessary military action, is not after the war is over, but now; for it is right now that we need the allegiance and the support not only of our own people in this country but of millions of people in Asia and in other parts of the world who cannot but be bewildered as to what it is all about.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that we like to call this action in which we are engaged a police action. We have not declared war. I quite agree that that is what collective security is, but I submit that if we use that parallel we should remember that in domestic society police action is not the only way in which we deal with crime. We seek to rehabilitate criminals. We impose sentence, of course. But we also spend a great deal of time and effort in trying to remove the conditions that lead to crime. I need not go into that now, because we are familiar with the things that we are seeking to do. I submit that that should be the picture so far as the international situation is concerned.
I do not want to detract by one iota from what is being done in the military sense. I have said that. I have said very clearly that so far as I am concerned, so far as this group is concerned and so far as our movement is concerned, we back the necessity of military action to resist aggression, (a) because aggression has to be stopped or we perish; and (b) because it is the result of a decision of the security council, which is the nearest thing to the rule of law that we have had in international affairs up to the present time.
I have before me a copy of an interesting speech made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) when he was representing Canada at the eleventh session of the economic

and social council in Geneva. The speech was made on July 11 of this year. I read it with great interest; but I must point out that though the subject under discussion was aid to underdeveloped countries, about all we get in the speech is agreement with the idea and support of the proposal that the matter deserves intensive study; there is nothing before us now to accompany necessary military action with these other proposals. It is the same old story-fine words but nothing to back them up.
As I have listened to the debate in this house I cannot take issue with the concern of those who have discussed the military aspects of the present situation. One cannot gainsay the terrible and ghastly prospect that faces us if we do not take police action, military action, if you will, to stop aggression. But we have done that before. We have done it twice in the lifetime of most of us in this place, and we cannot but wonder where it will lead us unless-this time-we add something new. That is my point, Mr. Speaker. That is the point the Secretary of State for External Affairs made. Military action, yes; but we must add something new, and that something new is an attempt to persuade the people, particularly of Asia, that our way offers them something substantial; and we could do that in various ways, particularly by economic aid to these underdeveloped countries. This special session of parliament-not next year, not when the war is over, but this special session of parliament-should be taking a lead from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and should right now be appropriating money to assist in a program of economic aid to those underdeveloped countries. I think there are other things that should be done. The other day one of my colleagues suggested the matter of bringing students from other countries to our country to learn our ways, to learn our industrial methods, our farming methods, our ways of organizing trade unions, and our whole democratic approach.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we must consider the whole question of the support of our own people, which is extremely important. One of the ways to do that is again to follow what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in his speech the other day. I like the figure of speech that he used toward the end of his address when he said this:
This effort will interfere with our comfortable peacetime existence. It is not going to be something that will break the camel's back, because the Canadian camel's back is pretty wide.
I agree, but I also agree with his next sentence:
But it will be something that may require a readjustment of the load already on that back,-
The Address-Mr. Knowles
I should not fail to read the whole sentened. It continues:	f
-and will also add to that load.
I agree with him that it would not breajc the Canadian camel's back. I agree with him that that load will add something to the load already there, but I also agree with him in the part of that sentence that I want to underline, namely, his insistence that the increased load may require a readjustment of the load already on the camel's back.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that this session of parliament has to do something about rising prices. We are not doing that if no action is taken to prevent prices from running wild. I was interested in' the letter which was sent to the government-perhaps directly to the Prime Minister-the other day by the Canadian association of consumers, in which they called for measures to prevent rising prices. In that letter-I do not have it before me-as I recall it, there was something to this effect, that the Canadian association of consumers was gratified that parliament was being called together at this time to deal with all of the various economic problems that were thrown into the picture by virtue of the international situation. Well, one of the most serious problems that has been thrown into the picture is this problem of rising prices. So far the only government suggestion for dealing with this problem is additional control in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding basic materials, and perhaps something by way of increased taxes, leaving prices themselves to go up or down as they may according to economic conditions. The chance of prices doing anything else but go up under the proposals or the lack of proposals that we have now is unanswerable. According to the last report of the bureau of statistics, issued at the end of last week, the cost of living index is now at its highest level in bur history- 168-5. And, as a comment on that, the bureau of statistics says that the food index has reached an all-time high of 216-7.
A great deal is being said these days in support of the economic theory that advocates the necessity of draining off purchasing power to prevent inflation, but, sir, the housewives in my constituency cannot understand that kind of talk at all. They do not understand the process of draining off their purchasing power when they have not enough now to buy the food they require for their families at these prices which have reached a high point of 216-7.
Like other members in the house I try to be a good husband when I am home and do some of the shopping. I am amazed,

The Address-Mr. Knowles as I am sure other members must be, at the prices of goods offered in our food stores. My heart really goes out in sympathy many times to housewives who stand at meat -counters or look over the groceries on store shelves and try to figure out how they can buy the cheaper cuts and the cheaper foods so as to get by with the limited purchasing power they possess.
I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The only trouble is that he should be over here lecturing to the cabinet, instead of putting up a front of words for the government. He is right-there should be a redistribution of the load on the camel's back. One of the ways in which we can distribute that load is for the government to bring in at this session a measure which would make possible the control of prices, so that, instead of going on up from this very high figure of 168-5 for all -commodities and 216-7 for food, there might be some sort of roll-back; people would then have a chance to keep going in this time of crisis, and they would be convinced that our democratic way is really the better way.
I know our people, as do all members in the house. They will back the government, they will back their country and they will back the United Nations in an effort to resist aggression, even though prices do run wild. They will do it with courage and sacrifice, even if they are let dow-n; because they realize that, even with all its faults, our democratic way is better than the totalitarian way. But they would do it with a great deal more spirit and with much greater confidence if this time steps were taken, not after the war is over but while it is on, to establish security and justice and real freedom here at home.
We all remember well the words of Mr. King during the early stages of world war II, that if we were to wait until after the war was over to look for the beginnings or the foundations of a new society we would look in vain. It had to be started then. All right; I am with the Secretary of State for External Affairs one hundred per cent in his insistence that the load on the camel's back should be redistributed now, and not after the war is over, so that the Canadian camel can carry the load. One of the ways to do it is to take action at this session on this staggering question of runaway prices.
Similarly I support with all the vigour I can the insistence of the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), upon an early implementation of the report of last session's special committee on old age security. I have been annoyed at the number of newspaper editors


across the country who are now suggesting that because of the increased costs of defence that program will have to be put on the shelf. I am glad to note, however, that as yet there has not been any announcement of that kind that could be attributed to a government source. So far it has just been found in editorials in newspapers such as the Winnipeg Free Press. In my view, that position is entirely wrong. In my view, now in the time to implement that report.
I submit our people are perfectly sound when they say that if money can be found for increased defence costs, and if it can be found for military assistance to other parties in the North Atlantic pact, it can also be found for economic aid to underdeveloped countries, and for an objective such as the social security program embodied in the bluebook that committee brought down at the end of the last session.
I well remember that in that committee some members said they were staggered by the amount of money involved in the various programs submitted. However, I do submit that those who were members of the committee will feel now that those amounts were not so staggering, to put it mildly, when compared with the sums of money we are called upon to vote at this session, and the sums of money that the present international situation, as it is developing, may yet cost.
I submit again that even if the government lets the people of Canada down and does not arrange for the implementation of that report, those people will support resistance to aggression; there is no doubt about it. But they will support it with much greater spirit, and much greater confidence -that there is a future ahead for our democratic way of life, if this time something new is added; if this time we take steps to redistribute the load over the camel's back, and if this time we take steps toward a new society while military action is going on.
I would emphasize one other point. It seems to me of extreme importance that we keep in the best state of repair our whole democratic and parliamentary processes. We hav^ before us a number of measures to be discussed later in the session, perhaps today or tomorrow, which, to say the least, ask parliament to give pretty wide powers to the cabinet. I think because of the situation a case will and no doubt can be made for increased power. But I submit that we must not allow expediency to run away with basic and fundamental principles. We must remember that the strength of political democracy as we know it lies in the parliamentary system.

Somehow the people back home look upon parliament as consisting of the ordinary backbenchers of all parties in the House of Commons. When parliament meets and makes decisions, even though the people may not like the decisions the majority makes, they are somewhat more palatable to them than when they are made by the cabinet, oil by itself, exercising power by order in council. For that reason I submit the government should think carefully about any program involving extreme powers placed in the hands of the cabinet, without the necessity of having parliament here or calling it back from time to time. This is no time to whittle away at the processes of democracy. This is no time to abrogate the rights .of parliament, to which the government is responsible. That must not be forgotten. This is a time when we are trying to tell the whole world that the democratic and parliamentary way is the better way. Let us keep that way in the best possible state of repair.
At the risk of repetition let me sum up what I have been saying by making my position as clear as I can make it. Right from the beginning of the Korean crisis we have supported the principle of collective security. We urged Canada to get in behind the United Nations, and we have supported the steps Canada has taken in support of what the United Nations has asked. That support is consistent with our prior position that, so far as we are concerned, collective security and the rule of law in world affairs are absolutely necessary. Those of us in this group have supported that position clearly. We have supported it in the House of Commons, and it was supported at our convention held since the last sitting of the house.
We believe aggression has to be resisted; but we believe firmly, with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that, this time, in resisting aggression, something new must be added to the necessary military measures, and that "something new", includes at least economic assistance to underdeveloped countries, ways and means of convincing the people of Asia and other parts of the world that we have something better; and it must include also a determined effort on the home front to convince our people of the superiority of our way.
I have already suggested ways in which that home-front job can be done. Our suggestion is to do something about runaway prices, to do something about social security, and to make sure that we keep our democratic and parliamentary processes in the best possible state of repair during this
The Address-Mr. Knowles critical time in the history of our nation and in the history of the world.
This is indeed a critical time; but if we will take a lead from what has been said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; if the government will put his proposals in concrete form on the order paper, I am convinced that we can yet have that brighter future for our country and for the people of the world which all of us dare to believe to be our destiny.


Mr. Decore:: I am wondering what suggestion the hon. member has to offer as to the kind of economic aid we should consider giving at this time to foreign countries, especially to Asiatic countries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wheat would be one substantial contribution. I am thinking of other things in addition, and I would repeat what I have said already. We should send out people to try to help those in other parts of the word to understand our social and economic processes; we should send out farm leaders and trade union organizers and social workers. In other words we should export not only the commercialism we have exported in the past but also the best things we have in our society.


John Decore: Do you mean that the wheat would be given to them?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Mr. Fair:: At the expense of the farmers again?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; on behalf of the whole country.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I know it is a custom that has become stale with repetition, but in the light of circumstances I extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both are young men, and without the benefit of young minds parliament cannot discharge its responsibilities and assume its prerogatives.
I listened with intense interest to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Thomson), who gave the house quite a lecture on constitutional matters and the functions of the opposition. It was a clear speech, but it revealed an attitude which in my opinion is a negation of democratic principles. The hon. member surprised me when he said that he regards cabinets with such high approval. He said, "Trust the cabinet". I understand that it will not be very long before he becomes the leader of the opposition in the Ontario house. If he does, his ideas with regard to government will have to undergo a tremendous
208	.	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker change. The attitude that an opposition is something to put up with on occasion is prevalent in some quarters. As I listened to the hon. member I was reminded of a summary of the power of the House of Commons made by Jennings in his monumental work, "Parliament", and I should like to repeat it because it epitomizes my concept of parliament. I quote:
It holds its position partly because of its great traditions. It has fought kings and dismissed them. It has raised up an army to destroy a king and was itself destroyed by its army; only to recall another king and to rise up again on the site of its own destruction. It has been modified and reformed to meet the changes of centuries. It has been led by the greatest men that the country has produced-Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger, Sir Robert Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone, Lloyd George; it has seen the greatest wits and orators in opposition to each other; it has, above all, achieved the pinnacle of freedom by listening to men like Charles James Fox, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Lloyd George and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Churchill who dared to be unpopular and, in the cant phrase, "unpatriotic", because they insisted on speaking the truth as they understood it.
That is what parliament is for. If the cabinet is to be trusted; if we are to accept at face value what ministers say, then we had better all be absent from this house. We would need no parliament. The hall-mark of democracy is not political uniformity; the hall-mark of democracy is parliament operating, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said the other day, as it did last week, when, regardless of differences, parliament spoke with power and decision. Its speedy action did more to restore parliament in the public mind than anything else that has happened in recent years.
I know that cabinets long in power tend to believe that they rule by divine right;
I know that they do not welcome oppositions, but a one-party state is not a democratic state. It is only when there is a vigilant opposition, prepared to take the stand that it believes necessary for the preservation of freedom, that there can be freedom.
We have met here on a serious occasion. Unless what the hon. member for Ontario has said is in fact indicative of the attitude of the government, I find it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)
>
seems so anxious to get rid of parliament at this time. I find it difficult to understand why he seemed so anxious the other day to do that which was not done in 1939, when one whom the government has always called a master parliamentarian, now deceased and honoured as part of the heritage of our country, realized that an opposition could work only if parliament were allowed to meet at reasonable hours. The regular rules and routine have been denied to us. In this respect the Prime Minister did not give


evidence of that co-operation and that recognition of the needs of the opposition that is so necessary in our parliamentary system.
Korea has dramatized the need of action if freedom is to be preserved. Canadians do not need proof that communism has become an outlaw internationally. They know what communism has done. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), in language of powerful imagery, showed what communism had done in the dethroning of human personality, the destruction of liberty and the prostitution of men everywhere to its treasonable designs.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the time has come when in addition to material defence measures this nation must draw from spiritual springs, and there must be on the part of each of us an active determination to see to it that freedom is preserved.
Communism has struck in Korea. It may strike in other parts of the world-in Turkey, Greece, west Germany or Indo-China. Wherever there are puppet states there is danger; there are potential Koreas.
Parliament has an opportunity now to be the epitome of the nation's will; to act, and to act with power and accelerated activity. The hon. member for Ontario says, "Tryst the cabinet". Unacquainted as I am with matters of national defence, I have been of the opinion on more than one occasion in the last two years that some of the criticisms that were being made might have gone too far. I could not believe that a government would contend, as this government said so often, that all was well, that Canada was prepared, if such were not the case. My hon. friend says, "Trust the cabinet".


An hon. Member:: You bet.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, "trust the cabinet"! Parliament will never function as it should if members of parliament-and I have no particular reference to anyone when I say this-become sycophants with feather dusters for criticism. Parliament must speak out, but only the cabinet can carry out the will of the nation. In truth, Mr. Speaker, it is the trustee of our freedom. Private members have a tremendous obligation and function to perform. I do not believe in criticism for criticism's sake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I do not. I have followed that course in this house. I believe the opposition must be constructive in its criticism. I believe that the government must be frank in what it tells the Canadian people, and it has not been frank during the last year

in regard to national defence. The facts may not be palatable. The Prime Minister mentioned palatability the other day. Palatability is no measure of statesmanship. I am not going to give lengthy quotations, but the Canadian people and newspapers across Canada supporting the government have been very critical about its leadership in this matter. I should like to see the Prime Minister, with the prestige he enjoys-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I have always paid tribute to that-I should like to see him arouse the Canadian people, not in a spirit of hysteria, but make them realize that only with grim determination and with all the power of our nation behind the government, which after all is our executive, can we meet the challenge to our way of life that the Korean crisis offers to even the most lethargic. As an international alarm clock it is waking free nations to the realization that we live in a dangerous world. Korea underlines what Churchill said only three months ago, that Great Britain is in greater peril now than it was in the dark days of 1940.
It is in this spirit that I intend to make certain suggestions today. I speak as an ordinary Canadian who feels there are some things that can be done that are not being done. The hon. member who preceded me said that the United Nations have gone a long way toward the establishment of the rule of law, and that is so. I welcome the decision of the government to appoint members of the opposition parties to the delegation to the United Nations assembly, even though in their designation they are in the position of being merely advisers. I believe what has taken place among the members of the United Nations in recent weeks has gone a long way toward the establishment of the rule of law. The decision of the United Nations to act against aggression is a long step forward toward the dream of mankind since the days of Grotius that there should in fact be some system of punishment internationally for wrongdoing on the part of nations.
The concept of an international police force goes back to the time of Castlereagh, when he advanced that proposition before the congress of Vienna in 1815. The statesman who took a stand against it then was Alexander I of Russia. I was in San Francisco in a very humble capacity in 1945. I saw there the building of what I thought would be a new world. I remember the words over the doorway of the hall in which the United Nations convened, a hall that was built after the first great war. The words were, "This monument-eloquent of hopes realized and
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker dreams come true." The United Nations has not realized those high hopes, although it has done much, The magnificent declaration of the preamble is still idealism. The international police force that was to be created was not set up, because the veto stood as a deterrent to any such action. The international rule of law, the dream of a thousand years, has been followed by rearmament for purposes of aggression by the U.S.S.R. and its satellites. Peace has indeed become the plaything of the politburo. If only certain words that Mr. Molotov uttered at that time had been carried into effect, how different the situation would be today! He said:
Only if conditions are created such as will guarantee that no violation of the peace, or threat of such violation, shall go unpunished, and that the adoption of such punitive measures is not too late, will the organization-
The United Nations.
-be able to discharge its responsibility for the cause of peace. The Soviet government is a sincere and firm champion of the establishment of a strong international security organization. We will fully co-operate in the solution of this great problem with all other governments genuinely devoted to this noble cause.
That is where all the nations stood at that time. That is where the United Nations now stands. It is in the action taken with respect to Korea by the United Nations that the implementation of its responsibility has in fact been carried out.
Now, sir, may I presume to make a suggestion in connection with the United Nations. We all know now that the action by the security council against Korea would not have been possible had it not been for the providential absence of the U.S.S.R. at the time the matter came up. When the security council fails to act, provision is made under certain circumstances that permit the assembly to act. Ordinarily the assembly requires ten days to be called together. It has the power to declare what proceedings should be taken against aggressors, after declaring that aggression has taken place. Action requires a two-thirds vote. Ten days is too long in a world of uncertainty, and I submit that the necessary change should be made in procedure, in view of the fact that the security council is emasculated by the presence of the U.S.S.R. Many nations have permanent representatives at the United Nations, and they could be called together within two days instead of ten.
My second suggestion is this. We know how strong the commission was that operated in Korea, and the unanswerable report it gave on the question. Why should there not be a permanent fire alarm commission established, which could give the alarm in Indochina, Iran, Yugoslavia? It would be in a

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker position to make reports which are so necessary for the preservation of our freedom. While we realize that the United Nations has not achieved everything, many things have been accomplished. Who would have thought live years ago that the thousand years of strife and war between France and Germany would be possible of solution? The Schuman plan is one dedicated to the principle that there are spiritual values in international relationships. Adenauer and Schuman agreed upon a course of action tentatively that may end ten centuries of strife between Germany and France. I should like the minister to say what the Canadian government's reply was when the Attlee administration submitted to it the Schuman plan. What stand was taken in reference to Britain giving its support?
Having over the years in this parliament heard collective security discussed, I come now to the question of our contribution, and whether Canada has in fact discharged her responsibility as she should. I have never been able to understand why, with so much emphasis being placed by the minister on the preservation of spiritual values and ideals, the international declaration of human freedoms has never been submitted to parliament. Why is it that Canada, as one of the nations dedicated to the principle of the sacredness of human personality, is one of the few nations that has never accepted the international declaration for the preservation of freedom? If Canada cannot accept an international declaration, what are we going to do should the day ever come when there is an international covenant having the effect of law?
The Prime Minister throughout the years has advocated collective security with all the power he is able to command. What is collective security? Collective security is more than the expression of vocal support; it is more than attendance at conferences. It is more than a government on tour through all parts of the world. Indeed this government might well be known as the conference-attending government. The government accepts the principle, but how far has it gone in the last year, until the Korean situation arose, to carry out our responsibility? The alibi now is: We never expected this thing to happen. The Prime Minister in 1948 spoke of the danger spots in the world and the need for collective security, yet both the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that they had not expected to be placed in a position where we would be sending troops outside of Canada. What did the Minister of National


Defence say in the United Nations World in July last?
The right place to defend Canada and what Canadians believe in is as far away from Canada as possible.
That has been the attitude all through the years. What did we have for that purpose, in July, 1950? Canadians across this country wondered what we had when the government was first called upon to put out the fire in Korea. In effect the government's answer was: We think the fire should be put out, but we need our own fire brigade at home. That was the attitude, and it was only public opinion that caused any change in that view.
Over the years I have listened to hon. gentlemen on this side of the house when they pointed out that we have spent a billion and a half dollars since 1945, and) asked what we have to show for it. In all too many cases what we have to show for it is measured by its invisibility. No one will suggest that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) speaks loosely. No other man in the commonwealth holds the decorations that he does. No other man has been commended more highly by the government for his co-operation. In his speech he revealed a defence situation that cannot be answered by merely telling parliament to go home. The people of Canada want to know. The hon. member for Ontario says we are giving help to the enemy by taking that attitude. Are we helping the enemy by making him aware of what everybody knows? Is it because the government is afraid of the facts that it persists in denying the setting up of a defence committee?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock I was dealing in general with the question of defence. Before going further may I say that regardless of party considerations, in my opinion the decision made about Formosa, as announced the other day by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is the only one that could be made under the circumstances, although it places the United States in a most detrimental position, having regard to the announcement of policy by the President of the United States.
Referring to the general matter of defence, after all, parliament has a greater responsibility than merely that of being brought here to vote money and then being told to go home. Parliament has the responsibility of assuring the Canadian people that such

moneys as are voted will be used effectively and efficiently. Parliament did act in reference to the railway strike; indeed, before the strike began, had the matter been brought before parliament then the economic situation and dislocation that followed might easily have been averted. It should act fearlessly on the problem of defence.
It seems difficult to get answers to questions in parliament. For over a year and a half now members on this side of the house have been endeavouring to ascertain Canada's responsibility under the United Nations and under the North Atlantic pact. Where do we stand on the North Atlantic pact? Is our responsibility to be one of manpower, or is it to be the expansion and development of our natural resources? Surely the people of this nation have a right to know what the plan is.
Last evening Canadians as a whole must have listened with interest and with pride to the radio speech delivered by Ross Munro in reference to Korea. He showed the difficulties. He spoke with firsthand knowledge. He gave details that were not known to us before, as only so experienced a war correspondent can. If the policy of this government is or was to meet aggression wherever it took place-and those were the bold, brave words of two years ago uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)- why did Canada not have something available, other than this small efficient and trained force? I repeat: What of the expenditure of $1,500 million? What is available that will defend Canada or discharge her responsibilities against aggression? Canadians ask: What has happened to all these hundreds of millions of dollars? There has never been a hold-up on the part of parliament. When we have been told the need for expenditure, provision for need has met the approval of this house. Where are the instruments of defence that were purchased by the amounts voted by parliament? As yet parliament does not know. Parliament, the custodian and bulwark of freedom for our people, does not know.
In my opinion the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) represents exactly what the people of this nation are saying at the present time. They do not want any more verbal assurances that our defences are adequate, based in many instances on detours from the truth. What they are asking for is that they have something more than cabinet assurance; that they have facts upon which they may judge. Someone may say to me that I overstate the situation. I can quote paper after paper supporting this government which wonder, as
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker we wonder, whether the explanations given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) are not merely exculpatory alibis. Here is what the Gazette of September 2 has to say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends laugh. I will give them the Free Press-let them laugh now-the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, and the Regina Leader. They are papers that realize, as do Canadians as a whole, that all is not well. We all want to believe that things are well. Three years have gone by, three years of statements by the government that all is well. One does not want even to consider the possibility, but what would have happened if the attack on South Korea had been on Canada? Here is what the Montreal Gazette said with regard to the matter:
And this is all the more strange, as Mr. Pearson and his colleagues have saidi repeatedly that a world war might be avoided if only communist Russia were to be made aware that the free nations were determined to resist her piecemeal aggressions. To put it another way, there has been planning for the final calamity, but there has not been planning for the sort of fighting force that might best prevent that final calamity.
In another paragraph it quotes these words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
The furnishing to the United Nations on short notice of an expeditionary force, capable of quick deployment in distant areas wherever aggression might take place, had not, I admit, entered into our planning.
Respecting which it concludes with these observations:	-
-it is a damaging statement, for it places much of what Mr. Pearson has been saying, both at home and abroad, in the category of diplomatic pretension.
My hon. friends ask: What do the other papers say? They too refer to the energetic inaction of the government. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix says that the government has been "altogether too complacent".


Mr. Fulton:: Is it friendly or otherwise?


John George Diefenbaker: Friendly. They were more than friendly in that summation. At another time the Star-Phoenix editorialized:
We are within our rights to expect our government to provide leadership. So far it has given us precious little leadership.
The Winnipeg Free Press also deals with the half-hearted policy. Here is what is says:
After three years, this country still does not possess a single brigade capable of going into immediate action though, in the interval, Czechoslovakia has disappeared, China has been swallowed up, wars are being fought in Malaya, French Indo-China and Korea, and overt threats are made wherever the soviet and the non-soviet world come in contact.
212	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
The world situation demands action. What does the government say to us? In effect, "Give us the money, and then go home."


James Arthur Ross: Out of our way.


John George Diefenbaker: Give us the power to be all-powerful. Some of the resolutions that are on the order paper ask just that: Give us the power to be all-powerful. Will the granting of wider powers change the inaction of recent years to powerful action on behalf of the preservation of this country? Canadians expect this parliament not to go home until we -can say to the Canadian people that the government intends to act; that the period of no planning is over; that the brave sentiments of the Minister of National Defence will be implemented-that wherever aggression can be met -outside of Canada it will be met.
Canadians are willing to be taxed; they will accept a greater load of taxation than they are bearing, provided that the -money is efficiently and effectively expended to assure the defence that Canadians have a right to expect. To assure -that, last year the opposition asked for the setting up of a commission similar to the Hoover commission in the United States, to end unnecessary, improper and wasteful expenditures. Let me quote what the Free Press said in that regard:
Real economy is so unpopular in Ottawa that the government even refuses to establish a parliamentary committee on estimates which could give to the annual budget the detailed study which it does not and cannot receive now.
We want to be assured that there shall be no wasteful expenditure while attaining the ends of all-out defence for our country.
In regard to the matter of inflation, to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), does anybody tell me that the people of this nation today, willing to sacrifice as they have always been, do not demand the end of unjust profiteering? The Combines Investigation Act should be used as a club to prevent injustice. It is being used as a lath by the government. The people of Canada believe in reasonable profits, but that the gouging which is going on in so many places must end if the war effort of this nation is to be what it should be.
Now a word as to Canada's contribution. In the main is it to be the production of war material? Is it to be the development of our natural resources? Is it to be manpower? The July issue of the United Nations World refers to the hidden resources this country possesses', resources necessary to the development and expansion of an all-out

defence, and also to the assurance that aggression shall be punished everywhere in the world. What is being done about a national development plan? I suggest that at the meeting of the dominion-provincial conference within the next two weeks the matter be brought before them, with a view to establishing within our country a dominion-provincial commission charged with the expansion and development of many of our hidden resources'-the sinews of defence such as copper, oil, asbestos, uranium and all the other needs of war that are here in Canada in such abundance but require development now that they are in short supply elsewhere.
Next, what is being done about the matter of civil defence? I attended the national mayors' conference in Saskatoon. They discussed the problem and agreed on the necessity of something being done. A committee has been set up as between the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities. The ultimate administration will rest with the municipalities. In the establishment of necessary defence measures for this country I suggest that consideration be given to the financing of civil defence-which after all is a segment of our national defence-by the dominion as a whole.
Finally, sir, in connection with the mobilization of the reserve army the hon. member for Greenwood placed certain suggestions before the house on Saturday. A complaint among those in the reserve army is the fact that when they give their time and their energies to this form of service they are subject to income tax. They should be relieved of such taxes, thus encouraging them and showing them that we recognize the service they are giving voluntarily.
Canadians want more than verbal assurances. They want more than rhetoric in respect to a period which is one of the most dangerous in our history. They want this government and this parliament to give them- absolute assurance that what we do will preserve freedom to the limit of our capacity; that parliament will be dynamic; that the action taken will be such as to create the high morale that comes when people join together in the realization that everything is being done that can be done to meet the challenge confronting the country.
The people are fearful today; for, with Korea in their minds, they ask themselves: What about the optimistic statements of the last few years? For these the government must be held strictly to account. We in the opposition, and private members in all parts

of the house, cannot do the things that Canada demands. But what we can do is to demand that the government act, so that when the session is over we shall, in a spirit of unity, realize that if austerity once more has come to this nation, it is necessary for our survival, and be able to assure the people of Canada of the need of personal sacrifice, as we were able to do during the days of war. What we want to be able to do is to assure this nation and to assure the United Nations that we shall do more than make optimistic statements; that the maintenance of collective security requires more than attendance at conferences where great and abiding principles are enunciated but too often forgotten when the delegates return.
This is what Churchill said:
Man in this moment of his history has emerged in greater supremacy over the forces of nature than has ever been dreamed of before. He has it in his power to solve quite easily the problems of material existence. He has conquered the wild beasts, and he has even conquered the insects and the microbes. There lies before him, if he wishes, a golden age of peace and progress. All is in his hand. He has only to conquer his last and worst enemy-himself. With vision, faith and courage, it may still be within our power to win a crowning victory for all.
My hope and my prayer is that we shall accept the responsibility at this time of assuring the Canadian people that wherever there is aggression it will be met, and of assuring the United Nations that we view our responsibilities as more than words in an idealistic charter, and that we in parliament will act now.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, my first words this afternoon are of the most pleasant nature, because they are words of congratulation of the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have established once again the value of our free educational system. Their constituents must be proud of them, and this house is thankful to the two hon. members who did so well in so few words.
The security of Canada and the liberty of all peace-loving nations should induce members of parliament to keep the serious matters under discussion out of a kind of politics which would imply any underestimation of the danger of our risk. I know that politics never lose their place; nevertheless it is in the power of wise politicians to stop momentarily their ordinary course, because if we do otherwise our enemies may be led to proclaim that our faith in ourselves is weakened by too prolonged an era of liberty, happiness and prosperity.
The Address-Mr. Boisvert (Translation):
War is hell. We thought, in 1945, the gates of this hell would forever close upon those who sought to plunge the world into it. Alas! Ill will on the part of one of the contracting parties has prevented the victory from being crowned by the holy peace humanity is so much in need of in order to free Christian civilization from the untold and countless hardships wrought by two world wars. And yet, as everyone knows, our Christian civilization is still the most beautiful, the most effective, the most propitious to the exercise of our religion, to the maintenance of our freedom and the administration of justice throughout the world.
Before enlarging on certain points, may I repeat, after many others, what are the aims of the United Nations charter. Let us not lose sight of them during this discussion. Otherwise, we may be led to misunderstand them or interpret them in a manner that would travesty our real desire to avoid another war and to seek permanent peace, based upon love, charity and order. Those are the basic principles not only of the United Nations charter but of every religion on earth.
I find those aims admirably set forth in the preamble to the North Atlantic treaty. I quote:
The parties to this treaty
Reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.
They seek to promote stability and well-being in the north Atlantic area.
The present aims fit perfectly within the framework of the principles set forth above as well as in the white paper entitled "Canada and the Korean Crisis". I quote:
(Text):
The first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security. For this purpose the members have bound themselves to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace when these occur.
(Translation) :
What happened in Korea?
On June 25, the United Nations commission in South Korea informed the Secretary General of the United Nations that North Korean troops had crossed the border into South Korea and were invading from east to west.
The security council then met to inform its members that an international conflict of
214	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Boisvert the utmost gravity had just broken out. The intervention of the United Nations was decided, because these activities were contrary to the provisions of the United Nations charter, as we were faced with an aggression which had been prepared a long time ahead, to the very last detail and in secret, against a member state of the United Nations. I do not have to recall what happened afterwards: organization of a force under the United Nations, co-operative action from the nations bound by the charter, participation, dispatching of various kinds of help, speedy preparations of our defences.
In Korea, the United Nations themselves are bound, under a sacred obligation, to repress aggression in conformity with the terms of the charter and the constitution of the security council. Canada, a sovereign and independent state, is not at war, but is bound to participate in the collective defence of peace, and peace has been violated somewhere in the world.
In the past, Canada, on its own initiative, has come to the rescue of imperilled nations. In the present conflict, Canada is bound under a new international law, which purports to preserve the peace of the world, to intervene where peace is threatened by aggression.
It has been suggested, and this suggestion is still heard in certain parts of the country, that we should fail to carry out our undertakings, that we should stay at home, let events run their course and let other nations take full responsibility for protecting world peace and defeating aggression. But, Mr. Speaker, do the exponents of this "stay at home and wait" principle realize that if ever Russia decided to attack us, other nations, bound by the charter, could observe the same neutrality and show the same unconcern?
All countries, including Russia, that took part in the last infernal conflict, were happy to hear that the signing of the United Nations charter was an accomplished fact. Here in Canada, the announcement was greeted with prayers and thanksgiving. Why is it that today some would have us believe that this charter, for which we offered thanks to God, is now a mere "scrap of paper"?
I need not reiterate. Canadians know what is at stake. Though they long for peace with all their soul, they will nobly and generously accept the greatest of sacrifices for the greatest of causes, the right of all and for all, here and elsewhere, to live a free life according to the laws of God and of men of good will.
War is not sought after, it is submitted to. People both suffer and die because of it. May God, in His providence, protect us from it.
[Mr Boisvert.]

(Text):
I listened with surprise and astonishment to the speeches of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) and the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). It is their right to express their own views, and we on this side of the house are appreciative of that right, but personally I resent the expression of an attitude supposedly based upon love of country but yet indicating a most unwise appraisal of events now occurring throughout our world.
If we look at the map of the world we see that Russia has already swallowed up half of Europe, more than half of Asia; is thriving on intrigue and is sabotaging the ideals of Christianity and the democratic peoples of the world.
What can we do? The answer is easy, provided that we have confidence in the destiny of our country. Could we do other than what we are doing to save a small nation from savage aggression? We have shown to the rest of the world and to the communists that our people still have faith in God and are ready to make the greatest sacrifices in order to save liberty and build an everlasting peace.
We cannot have an everlasting peace so long as the world is faced with a cold war. If there is war, it will not be because we desire it. As I said in French, war is hell. Let us ask God to help us to close for ever its doors and to assist our sons in this battle of Korea. This struggle is the struggle of Canada; it is the struggle of the province of Quebec; it is the struggle of all who want to survive. I am not one who wants to wait until I reach the bottom of a turbulent river before gripping solidly the hand offered to me to save me from a sure death. The death of a living soul is worse than the death of a body.
I have talked to many farmers in my constituency, and I can assure you that in speaking as I do today I am interpreting their sentiments of fear and hope. They fear to lose what it has taken so long to realize,-a free and beautiful country, a progressive country, a united country. They hope that everything will be preserved by the steps taken by this government led by the wisdom of its great leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in whom they have placed their confidence.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne at this special session contains two short paragraphs, one referring to the railway strike and the other to the situation which has

arisen because of aggression in South Korea. In effect we are now dealing with that second paragraph, which reads:
You will also be asked to give urgent consideration to the measures for increased national security and international co-operation required by the fighting in Korea and the increasingly grave international situation which that struggle reflects. That was the original reason for summoning you to this special session.
To that paragraph we of the official opposition have moved an amendment, which I propose to support, and which reads as follows:
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."
At the outset may I say it is perfectly clear that the people of the world, including Canadians, are living in a new era which may well be called the Korean era. I believe it would be wise for the members of this house to give some thought to developments we may expect in this new era which we entered so suddenly during the last week end in June.
In the first place, we may expect open aggression at any time by Russia or her satellites. In Korea the communists challenged the United Nations, the United States and all the democracies, including Canada. Probably they thought that challenge would be ignored, but instead our great neighbour the United States took it up at once. For such courageous action she deserves the gratitude of every person in all the democratic countries of the world. Because Russia was sulking and was not sitting in at the meetings of the security council the United Nations were able to act. That fact gives me great encouragement. It shows that all the stupid people are not on our side. We think that we are the only ones who make mistakes but here we have these communists, whom we sometimes think have all the brains in the world, making the great mistake of staying away from the security council meetings, pouting, and thereby giving the democracies a chance to take action through the United Nations.
No attack will be initiated by a democratic country; everyone in this chamber today knows that. If there is an attack it will be started by the communists, and will be started without warning. There will be little or no time for us or any other nation on our side to make further preparations. In other words, in this new era Canadians must not be startled by an attack. Then we must expect to find Russia and her satellites stronger than we thought they were, and the democracies weaker, particularly in ground forces. I believe that the democracies have been
The Address-Mr. Green paying too much attention to machines of war. They have been sitting back thinking that if they have the most modern equipment, if they have plenty of atom bombs, then there is no fear of war, or if war should start that they would always be able to win without very much effort. It comes back to the old story of the first great war which you and I, Mr. Speaker, know so well, the old story of the p.b.i. There always has to be somebody brave enough to go right in and root out the enemy. I hope the democracies will remember that in these grim days.
We can expect no real peace for a long time, perhaps not in the lifetime of any member in this chamber today. Certainly there will be no real peace in the lifetime of the present parliament. It is clear that in the lifetime of this parliament there will be either a third world war or an armed peace with war prevented only because we are so strong that the communists dare not fight. It is clear too that in this new era we must be ready to defend ourselves at a moment's notice, and that we must stand beside-I repeat, beside and not behind-our friends. The penalty for failure to do so is death or slavery for the people of the democracies and the end of Christian civilization.
We are gathered together in this special session as representatives of the Canadian people to consider the course that Canada should follow in this Korean era. I think our duty was put very clearly in an editorial in the Vancouver Province a week ago today, which contained this sentence:
There are tough, urgent problems facing Canada, and they can be solved only by straight thinking and plain speaking.
Today I have a few thoughts that I wish to place before the house, but more particularly before the ministry, because the nation must look for leadership to the members of the present cabinet. The first thought is that they should tell the people the whole truth, even though it may be unpleasant. Let the cabinet remember Churchill's famous speech in 1940, when he reminded the British people that they need expect nothing but blood, sweat and tears. Let the Canadian cabinet, from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) down, tell the people the truth. Last Friday the Prime Minister made a statement in the house that did not come up to those requirements. I believe he was carried away by the exuberance of the moment when he said that the crisis would last for only ten months. Mind you, in his speech there were qualifications, but here is the heading in an Ottawa paper:
Ten months of crisis seen by P.M. but looks for dawn of era of lasting peace.
216	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green
The first paragraph of the newspaper story reads:
The next ten months are crisis months, Prime Minister St. Laurent told the House of Commons yesterday, but he hoped and felt that "we may not be far from the dawn of an era of lasting peace."
Similar articles appeared in all other Canadian newspapers which I have had an opportunity of reading since that time. Such statements are misleading; they are merely wishful thinking in these times. There is nothing temporary about our danger. It will not be over in ten months. We shall be mighty lucky if it is over in ten years. If the Prime Minister really believes the statement he made, then it is time that Canada had a new Prime Minister.
Then there was the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) last week. Its general tone was: Everything will be all right; why are you worrying?-trust me and all will be well. His attitude throughout this crisis has been such that I believe the Canadian people may very well question his fitness to be Minister of National Defence. He must be far more realistic in the leadership he gives to the Canadian people. What Canada needs more than anything else today is the Churchill touch in her leaders, and very little of that is visible thus far.
The original reason for calling the special session was to deal with the question of sending ground forces to Korea. It took the government a long time to make up its mind. The regular session for this year should not have been prorogued; in any event we should have been called back weeks ago; yet until the railway strike occurred, the intention was that we would not be called for a further six weeks or two months. However, here we are, and I presume the government wants to know where everybody stands on the question of sending ground forces to Korea. Personally I approve that course. For years it has been Canadian policy to keep war away from our shores. My deskmate, the hon. member for Lake Centre <Mr. Diefenbaker), quoted a statement to that effect by the Minister of National Defence, which appeared in the United Nations World for the month of July. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made a similar statement on August 31 when in the course of his speech he said that Canada's defence policy was designed to be capable of rapid expansion in the event of a general war which might require Canada to be defended outside of Canada. I can never understand how any Canadian who knows anything about war can be against a policy IMr. Green.]

the aim of which is to keep the fighting in somebody's else country. Surely that is just plain common sense.
Then we had a clear-cut obligation to the United Nations to send forces to Korea. It is only there that aggression can be fought at this time. Perhaps the only way a third world war can be prevented is through successful fighting by the United Nations in Korea.
Although I approve the sending of ground forces, I regret more than I can say the hesitation and evasion which have been shown by this government along the tortuous course by which it finally reached the decision that Canada should send ground troops. I have here a revealing publication issued by the Secretary of State for External Affairs entitled "Canada and the Korean Crisis." It tells the whole story. On June 27 the security council, acting with promptitude, passed a resolution, the last paragraph of which reads as follows:
Recommends that the members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.
On July 14 there was a direct request from the Secretary General of the United Nations to Canada, along with the other nations who were members of that organization, in which we find this:
-there is an urgent need for additional effective assistance. I should be grateful, therefore, if your government would examine its capacity to provide an increased volume of combat forces, particularly ground forces.
On July 19 we had a statement from the Prime Minister. He did not face that request for ground forces. Oh, no; he evaded that request in his speech to the Canadian people. He said that we would recruit our active forces, and we would send air transport to help carry United States soldiers to the battlefield, but there was not one word about Canada sending ground troops promptly as requested by the United Nations. We find that on July 21 Canada sent a note to the Secretary General of the United Nations. In that note there appears this strange paragraph:
You will observe that in Mr. St. Laurent's statement-
A copy of the Prime Minister's statement was sent as well.
-reference is made to the Canadian government's willingness to give consideration to participation in a United Nations force for service in Korea should a decision to that effect be taken by the security council.
Although the security council had passed a resolution on June 27, almost a month before this particular note.

After a further three weeks the Prime Minister, in a broadcast to the people of Canada, announced that the government would send ground forces to Korea. There was no announcement that it would send one of our active army battalions, which was certainly better trained than any group could be which would have to be enlisted from the cities, towns and villages of Canada. The announcement was not made that we would send one battalion of troops quickly when time was of such importance. No; we were going to raise a Canadian army special force which would be ready to fight in six months or more. From the statements made by the ministry it appears that that force will not be in a position to fight for at least six months.
In today's press there appears an article headed: "Pleads for men: MacArthur wants more troops fast". The article reads:
My gravest concern is for a prompt build-up of the now outnumbered ground forces of this command . . .
I still feel it my duty to report to you that contributions must be forthcoming without delay if this threat to international security is to be resolved promptly.
Today the news on the radio tells us that our friends have been driven back several more miles. Canadian government policy, in effect, amounted to this: Let somebody else do the fighting for the first six months or a year. It would have been just the same if the aggression had been against a member of the North Atlantic pact. If there was no force to send to Korea; then there was none to send to help one of these North Atlantic treaty nations if it had been attacked. Yet Canada was the first nation to sign the North Atlantic treaty. I recall that the government took a lot of credit for that fact. How the ministry rushed that approval through this house in their desire for Canada to be the first nation to sign the treaty! I repeat that I regret this hesitation and evasion on the part of the government. It is not in line with the courage of the Canadian people, and it is particularly unfortunate in view of our relationship with our neighbour, the United States.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I urge that Canadians serve with a British commonwealth division, and that the government announce such a policy before the end of this special session. Here again we have hesitation and evasion. The Australians and the British have troops in the Far East. Britain has troops either already in action or going into action in Korea within a few hours. Australia has had troops in the army of occupation in Japan. There is a British commonwealth
The Address-Mr. Green base for troops in Japan to which Canadian troops could go, and yet we find Canada hanging back.
I propose to read a few extracts from press dispatches, the first of which is dated July 28, before Canada decided to send any ground forces. The first two paragraphs read as follows:
The Australian government formally and fully informed the Canadian government of its proposal that a commonwealth division should be formed for the fighting in Korea, before any announcement was made in the press, it was learned here today.
The plan envisaged other commonwealth troops taking part along with those of Australia and New Zealand, but no direct request was made to Canada to participate, though obviously the Australians, like the Americans, would have been happy if Canadians did join the ground forces in Korean fighting.
On August 10 there was a press dispatch from Ottawa to the effect that the government was going to let parliament decide with what troops the Canadians would fight. A few days later an editorial appeared in the Vancouver Sun, which paper is a supporter of this government. In this editorial I believe the Sun represents the thinking of every person in the province of British Columbia. It is headed "A Commonwealth Division", and reads in part as follows:
And there is no valid reason why it should not approve its grouping with other commonwealth units as part of a commonwealth division. To the majority of Canadians, surely, this would seem a natural thing.
Supposing it goes to Korea, how would the special brigade fight? As an independent unit? Hardly. It would be grouped with other units into a division. If it is to be a composite division, what better arrangement could be made than one of all-commonwealth character?
There is one reason above all why, since we are not sending more than a brigade, it should be grouped with the brigades that will be going from Australia and Britain and the artillery from New Zealand. And that is that these are all commonwealth units and we are all proud to belong to the commonwealth.
Yet the Minister of National Defence speaking here last week, when I asked him whether our brigade was to be in a commonwealth division, hummed and hawed. He said that the brigade will have British-type equipment; that there will be other commonwealth units and they too will have British-type equipment; that perhaps it might serve with them and perhaps it might not; but he thought we had better leave that decision to the United Nations command. If any hon. members would care to read his statement, they will find it at pages 99 and 100 of Hansard.
I believe that the Minister of National Defence hopes that the Canadian brigade will serve either with United States forces or with a United Nations division in which our
218	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green men would have as associates troops from other nations such as Turkey, Thailand-and I mean no discredit to them-and other nations which have volunteered to send troops to the Korean fight.
The government appears to be completely ignoring tradition and history. Thirty-two years ago some of us fought in the battle of Amiens, on August 8, 1918. Beside the second Canadian division fought Australian troops and you could have no finer troops on your flank. As to New Zealanders, I do not need to remind any veteran in this house what Canadian troops thought of them. I need only quote from a book on Field Marshal Rommel by Desmond Young, which has recently been published. There we find what that great fighting leader thought of New Zealanders. In this book I find this statement:
For New Zealanders, individually and collectively, he had almost an affection.
That was the feeling of the great German commander toward our blood brothers in New Zealand. As to the British guards brigade, there have been no finer troops in the modem world; or the Highland regiments, with all their dash and all their gallantry. It is just too bad that in this Canadian army special force there is no Highland regiment; there should be one to represent the Scotsmen of this nation.
Does the government forget that ten years ago the British commonwealth was standing alone against the enemy; that for a whole year, with the exception of the help of gallant little Greece, the British commonwealth stood alone and saved civilization? Yet here we have a Minister of National Defence who is afraid or unwilling to announce that Canadian troops are going to serve with the British commonwealth division.
One of the greatest tragedies of our time is that the British commonwealth is not today a third great world power standing on an equal footing with the United States and Russia. That might have been the case. That was the case when the fighting stopped in 1945. But this Canadian government has been primarily responsible for preventing the commonwealth from being in that position today because, right from 1944, when the late Mr. Mackenzie King said that there would be no commonwealth bloc if he could prevent it, this government has been playing down the British commonwealth. By the actions of the ministry, one would think that they are trying to ease Canada out of the British commonwealth by the back door.


Hughes Cleaver: That is a stupid thing to say.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member does not like it, let him get up and prove that it is not so.


Hughes Cleaver: I say that I think it is a
stupid thing to say.


Howard Charles Green: Then there is another 'thing. Let the Canadian government stop harrying- and I repeat the word "harrying"- the United States about Formosa. The action of the Americans with regard to Formosa is necessary for the maintenance of the defence line of the democracies in the Pacific. I have here a report of this speech by General MacArthur which the President would not allow to be delivered. What do we find? That great leader -and after all, he is the great leader in the Pacific area-described the chain of defence. The report states:
Through the Pacific victory of world war II, MacArthur said, the strategic frontier of the United States was extended from the coastal waters of the Americas "to embrace the entire Pacific ocean which has become a vast moat to protect us as long as we hold it ... We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Marianas held by us and our free allies".
This natural chain is an easy defence line to maintain, MacArthur said, because it gives air domination of "every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore".
"If we hold this line we may have peace", MacArthur said, "... lose it and war is inevitable."
If that line goes, then the next line of defence on the Pacific will be not western Alaska but eastern Alaska, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Canada's west coast.
This question will be up for consideration in the United Nations within the next few days. I hope that the Canadian representatives will at least have the common sense and the decency to refrain from joining in the chorus attacking the United States about Formosa.
Another thought is this. Canada must help to bring about stability in the Pacific area. There is no collective security in the Pacific. Legally, the communists are able to run wild there without breaking any pact which can, in actual practice, get them into trouble. Suppose there is aggression in Indo-China, in the Malay peninsula or in Indonesia. The United Nations will not be able to act because the Russians have learned their lesson and are now back in the security council in a position to veto such action. The democracies were lucky to be able to get action in Korea but they cannot do that again through the security council. The North Atlantic treaty does not apply because it is restricted to stopping aggression in Europe or in North America.

Although I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs continues to ridicule the idea, I suggest once more that Canada should take the lead in urging the setting up of a Pacific defence pact. Or if he is unwilling to do that, let him take the lead in advocating a broadening of the terms of the North Atlantic treaty so that they will cover aggression against a party to that treaty, no matter where in the world such aggression may take place. Furthermore, let him advocate that Australia and New Zealand be allowed to become parties to the North Atlantic treaty as well as any other democratic nation which cares to join.
Here is another thought. Canada must have larger forces in being, trained, and on a fire-brigade basis. Let us think of this as we would think of having a fire brigade in our own cities, quite apart from forces which are going overseas. It is so vital because Canada herself may be attacked. We are now facing that direct threat, and if we are attacked it will probably be without warning. That situation will continue, Mr. Speaker, just as long as this state of armed peace exists in the world. The crux of the problem is how long will it take to mobilize Canada's fighting divisions, and such units as her anti-aircraft regiments? At present that time can definitely be said to be a matter of months or perhaps of over a year.
We must have plans not only for the use of our fighting forces but also for our civil defence. The Minister of National Defence has not said one word about civil defence plans for Canada. We must have plans for industrial mobilization, for increasing our agricultural production, for the mobilization of our financial resources. Steps must be taken to root out profiteering. The government may not know it, but across this country today there is a wave of irresponsible price raising, which must be dealt with by parliament at this session. All these plans should be announced to us before the session is prorogued.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, all the war activities will bring about an increase in our national income. That is one good feature of this grim situation. The days ahead will be days of high employment. Now is the time to institute a system of contributory pensions and to abolish the means test. I realize that it could not be done at this session, but it certainly could be done at the next. Remember that in the second world war we were able to build up an unemployment insurance fund and put unemployment insurance on a solid basis in this country. I hope there will be no delay
The Address-Mr. Pearson in this move I am now recommending because nothing will do more to keep the morale of the Canadian people high in this time of crisis.
In conclusion, all of these steps Canada must now take will be difficult. They call for effort and sacrifices by our people. Above all they call for leadership by our government. The people of British Columbia are disturbed, as I have never seen them disturbed before, over the way in which this government has been floundering around since Canada went into the Korean era in the last week of June. People are disturbed at the way in which the government has been sitting back waiting to see which way public opinion would go.
In this new era, if Canada is to survive, her government must be courageous and must have clear-cut policies. There must be no more of this wobbling; the Canadian government must be ready at all times to give the Canadian people leadership.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I had expected to participate in the debate on this amendment sometime later, but in view of what has been said this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and before him by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I think I should intervene at once to make the government's position clear in regard to certain matters which they mentioned in a way which I do not admit for one minute represents the policy of the government in respect of those matters. I think that I should first attempt to deal with the point made by the speaker who has just taken his seat in regard to Canada's leadership, as he calls it-


Howard Charles Green: Lack of leadership.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -leadership for a Pacific pact. In his remarks he mentioned that I have previously ridiculed his ideas in regard to a Pacific pact. I do not think I have done that, Mr. Speaker, nor would I wish to do it. I respect any ideas he may have concerning a Pacific pact or on any other subject. But I should like him to explain sometime to the house, if he will, in some detail, and not in general phrases, what he means by "Pacific pact."
Meanwhile, I shall try if I can to explain in specific language our policy, the policy of the government, in respect to such a pact. I have said before, and I repeat it, that in our view it would be unwise for this government at this time not only to take any leadership in regard to a Pacific pact but to participate in present circumstances in such a pact along the line of that which has been
220	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson shown to be effective in the north Atlantic region. I say that because in the first place a particular procedure in regard to one region of the world is not necessarily the best procedure in regard to another; and the conditions which made desirable, indeed even necessary, that kind of mutual guarantee pact in the north Atlantic do not exist in the Pacific at the present time, and I am sure no hon. member thinks that they do exist.
If the situation there is entirely different, as I think it is, then I see no reason why we should at this time take the leadership in regard to a Pacific pact. I would ask the hon. member if he means by Pacific pact that Canada should give exactly the same type of guarantee that we have given to our friends in the north Atlantic, to all Asiatic states, all Pacific states.


Howard Charles Green: You tell us what you are going to do about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If not, what states would he exclude and what states . would he include?
I do not think it is- desirable at this time to proceed along those lines in regard to security in the Pacific. In that position we have the approval and support of the government of the United States, of the government of the United Kingdom, of the government of India, and I have no reason to believe that the position of the government of Australia or that of the government of New Zealand is different.
We have of course obligations in regard to the Pacific. The operations in which we are engaged in Korea as a member of the United Nations show what these obligations are and that we accept them. But to add to the general obligations under the United Nations charter specific obligations of mutual defence in respect to other Pacific states at this time would, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, be a very rash course of policy for Canada.
The government has been strongly criticized in this debate by members of the official opposition because, in their words, we have not effectively carried out our obligations under the United Nations charter in respect of collective security. No member of the government and no member of this party will accept that charge for one moment. We reject the suggestion, and reject it with emphasis, that we have not done our duty in respect of Korea, and in respect of every other matter concerning collective security as a member of the United Nations.
We are criticized by members of the official opposition because we have not gone far enough in the discharge of our obligations in this particular matter. We have also been criticized by certain Independent members of


the house because we have gone too far. As usual, the position of the government, despite what members of the opposition may say, seems to represent a position of sanity and efficiency in the discharge of its obligations.
What we are doing in regard to Korea we are doing as a member of the United Nations, as I tried to say the other day, and in no other capacity. And in regard to certain criticism of the government that we have done too much-and I regret that the members who made that criticism are not present at this time-I would merely say that we had no choice in this matter, if we were to discharge our obligations to the United Nations and our obligations to our own national security, no choice but to join other states of the United Nations in the action which was decreed by the security council.
It has been suggested that we could have made further efforts in regard to mediation and the employment of pacific measures in this Korean dispute. That, of course, as I see it, is not a realistic suggestion. Because, even when it was tried-and it was tried in the early days of this dispute-the aggressor treated that suggestion with contempt. What we are doing on this occasion is to try to make it clear-and by "we" I mean the members who have accepted the security council resolution-that this time the aggressor will not be able to destroy his victims one by one, as he was able to do in 1938 and 1939. And in taking that action we hope that this lesson will be effectively learned where it needs to be learned, and that therefore we may not be asked later on to take more drastic action against those who are behind the aggression in Korea.
In that connection we feel that in the action we are taking in regard to Korea we are taking action not only for the defence of Canada but for the preservation of peace. And that brings me to a speech made in the house the other night by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes).


Mr. Ferguson:: May I ask a question, for my own clarification? The minister states that this government is doing what he believes to be the correct thing according to our obligations under the United Nations. For the benefit of myself, if not for the rest of the people of Canada, what exactly are our obligations? The people of Canada, those of them I know, do not know what those obligations are. Would you give me and the people some enlightenment? What are those obligations, so that in my opinion I may judge whether you are living up to your obligations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall try to answer the hon. member as I go along, because he has asked

a very important question. I do not know that I shall be able to satisfy him, but I shall do my best.
The hon. member for Nanaimo asked the other night, in a speech which I found very interesting-in fact, in a speech which, if it did not equal mine in the quantity of its adjectives, did include one or two nouns that we shall remember I think in this house long after my adjectives have been forgotten-he asked why did I skate around and not deal with the pathetic appeal from General MacArthur. And that point was made again this afternoon by other hon. members. Well, I did not do any skating around on this occasion at all because it was not necessary, and because no such appeal had been made.
The appeal to which the hon. member may have been referring, and which has been mentioned by other hon. members, was the appeal made by the Secretary General of the United Nations on July 14, which, as it has been stated, was made some weeks before this government made available, or put into operation, a set of circumstances which would make available land forces for Korea.
Now, that request of the secretary general was made on July 14. This government has been accused of delaying, and of lack of leadership, and of a lot of other things because we did not deal with it speedily and effectively enough. What was our obligation in regard to our position in the United Nations? What did we do to carry out that obligation?
Our obligation under the United Nations charter, as I understand it, is to accept the decision of the security council for the use of forces which have been made available to the United Nations by military agreements concluded between the countries concerned in the United Nations under article 43 of the charter. If this agreement had been concluded, then we would have been obliged, on account of the decision of the security council and after that decision had been discussed with us, to make any forces available to the security council which were covered by that agreement.
As it happened, for reasons which have been explained in this house, no such agreements have been made by any member of the United Nations. The Canadian government, as has been pointed out, took steps as far back as 1946 to urge upon the United Nations the desirability of making such an agreement, but no progress could be made because any discussion leading up to this had been vetoed, by the U.S.S.R., and all proposals were vetoed in the military staff committee by the representatives of the U.S.S.R. So we have no obligation on that score specifically
The Address-Mr. Pearson to send to the help of the United Nations armed forces which were covered by any agreement.
But that did not exempt us from the general obligation under the security council resolution to do what we could to restore peace and defeat aggression. We must accept that obligation. It is not a specific obligation to make any kind of forces available, but it is an obligation to do what we can to see that any aggression is defeated, once a security council resolution has been passed which we ourselves accept-as we did the security council resolution of June 29.
When this resolution was passed we did make help available to the United Nations and at once. As I said the other day, we made the three destroyers available. Shortly after that, on July 14, the secretary general made the appeal to which reference has been made, for further effective assistance, as he said- and I admit it-with ground forces.
Immediately after that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announced that we would make a transport squadron available. There was no intention on the part of the Canadian government at that time to make the first-line elements of the Canadian army available. That decision has been criticized by hon. members opposite. They have every right to criticize, if they wish; but we do not admit, having taken that position, that we were not discharging our obligations, in the light of subsequent developments.
What did we do then? Well, after announcing the dispatch of the R.C.A.F. transport squadron we entered into discussion at once with representatives of the unified command, and also with the secretary general, to find out not only what the situation in Korea was, but what it was likely to be, and what would be the use made of Canadian forces, and what would be the relationship of any contribution of ours on land to the possible extension of the conflict in Asia-to Formosa, for instance -and, particularly, what was the policy of the United States government in regard to such expansion. Was there any likelihood of a general expansion of this conflict in Korea in such a way that Canadian troops earmarked for Korea might be involved? To get some clarification of that point we discussed matters in London, Washington and at Lake Success. As I mentioned the other day, I made a trip to Washington where I had some very interesting and useful discussions with the secretary of state. I also made a trip to Lake Success. It was as a result of those explorations and of information which we were able to obtain that we made our further decision to send land forces on August 7 last,

The Address-Mr. Pearson less than a month after the secretary general had made his appeal to members of the United Nations.
It has been said that that was a dilatory and ineffective action on our part. As the hon. member for Nanaimo put it the other night, we should have given world leadership in this matter. Let us see what else we could have done and how we might have done it. Incidentally I should say that it was not until a week or ten days after that appeal of the secretary general that other countries began to make land forces available, countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and some others. Among the countries that have responded effectively to the United Nations appeal Canada takes a proud place and does not need to apologize to anybody for her action.
When we are criticized for not doing enough and for not doing it quickly enough, then I think it is incumbent upon those who criticize us to tell us what might have been done, what alternative course might have been followed. This has been suggested on, the other side of the house. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo, as I understood his speech, and this suggestion has been repeated by other hon. members opposite, that we should have sent the members of our permanent force to Korea at once to take part in the war going on there.
That was, not the course followed by our sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, it is not the course that was followed by other members of the United Nations who were in the circumstances in which we were placed. Of course it may be suggested that the United Kingdom has taken that course, having sent two battalions of its regular army to Korea. That is quite true. The United Kingdom made that decision some time after it had made an earlier decision to send a brigade. That decision may have been influenced by the fact that the United Kingdom had troops at Hong Kong, had a base of supplies at Hong Kong which would be able to supply troops sent from Hong Kong to Korea.
What could we have done if we had sent part or all of our permanent force to Korea when this request was made by the Secretary General of the United Nations? Is it suggested by any member opposite that our permanent mixed and trained brigade should have been sent at once to Korea as part of the United Nations forces there? If so, then I should think the worries of the hon. member for Nanaimo about the defence of the Pacific coast would have been much greater than they are now. That furthermore would


have been a course that was not followed by any other member of the United Nations. To the suggestion that we should give leadership, that would be getting far out in front of the parade. In a matter of this kind I do not think we want to be in that exposed position.
An alternative course was mentioned this afternoon by the hon,. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra (Mr. Green). The hon. member suggested that we should have sent part of our permanent force, I think he suggested one battalion, no doubt as a token contribution to the United Nations effort in Korea- one battalion to take part in operations seven or eight thousand miles away from its base of supply. I am certainly not a military expert, but I do not think that any military expert on this or on the other side of the house would seriously consider that possibility and would recommend that we should send a battalion at once to Korea and keep it supplied from a base seven or eight thousand miles away.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How are the three destroyers being supplied?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the best answer to that suggestion was given by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) in his interesting speech the other night. I think I am quoting him correctly from Hansard when I say that he suggested that the western world cannot afford to commit its strength piecemeal in various parts of the world. I think that indicates a useful principle which should be applied, not only to Korea but to other areas where trouble may break out. Then the hon. member for Calgary East went on to ask the government whether they had any idea how they would meet further aggression like that we are facing today in Korea. I do not think we would be in a better position to meet such further aggression, aggression by proxy as it has been, called, if we had at the beginning of this aggression committed our active land forces at once to Korea. However, the question is a reasonable one and I think we should attempt to answer it.
I think it was the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) who suggested when speaking the other night that we should have had a special force in readiness to carry out our United Nations obligations and have been able to send troops to Korea at once without danger of denuding our defences on this continent. Other hon. members opposite have asked why we had not made plans of that kind. As I tried to say the other night, no member of the

United Nations, including the United States of America and Great Britain, had plans of that kind in readiness to meet aggression.
For reasons which to me seem pretty clear, we did not contemplate this kind of aggression. I admitted that the other day and a good deal has been made of that admission. Why did we not expect it? In the first place, we did not expect it because there were no military agreements under article 43 by which we were bound. In the second place, we did not expect it because it was difficult to visualize a resolution of the security council to use force against a communist state which would not be vetoed by the U.S.S.R. as a member of the security council. Therefore, realizing the weaknesses of the security council in this matter, realizing the unlikelihood of the United Nations being able to live up to its joint obligations in respect to this kind of aggression, certainly from communist countries, we had along with other countries worked out the North Atlantic pact under which our obligations in respect of that group of states would be specific and would not be vetoed by anybody.
It has been asked this afternoon whether any plans have been made to meet aggression under the North Atlantic pact. It was suggested in one statement that if we were not ready for Korea we might not foe ready for Norway. I submit that the situation is different indeed. For the last year under the North Atlantic pact we have been working out plans to meet aggression against any member of the north Atlantic community. Canada's contribution to those plans is being worked out. It is being discussed, and when the discussions are completed the result will foe announced to this house.
But I am sure hon. members will appreciate that it is very difficult indeed at this time, in the midst of these discussions, to explain in detail what part we may have to play in regard to the carrying out of our obligations under the North Atlantic pact. It is possible, however-and I am sure the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will not mind if I say this-to say at this time, pending revision of those plans which is now under way in the light of developments since June, that it is understood by our friends of the North Atlantic pact that our position in regard to collective defence in an attack on western Europe would be, on land, to use our permanent force to assist United States forces, or to foe assisted by United States forces, in repelling a direct attack from the north, and using it as a basis for the expansion of our army for a later expeditionary force to defend Canada outside Canada.
That was stated the other day. That has been stated by the Minister of National
The Address-Mr. Pearson Defence. That is our general position inside the North Atlantic plan. If and when that position may be altered-and it may be altered in the light of developments and we may have to do other things-that change will be announced.


Mr. Hees:: I wonder if the minister would permit a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Harris Hees: There is a question that remains unanswered in most Canadian minds, and which is bothering all of us. On August 7 the government notified the United Nations that we were prepared to send a brigade for use in Korea or elsewhere where it was needed. Why could the government not have made that decision three weeks earlier, on July 19, when it first notified the Secretary General of the United Nations that we would not comply with their urgent request for ground forces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I tried to deal with that, but no doubt not to the satisfaction of the hon. member. I said that during the intervening period we had been making investigations in Washington, London, at Lake Success, and indeed elsewhere, as to what would be the likelihood of the conflict in Korea extending to other countries in the Far East, what particularly was going to be the policy of the United States with respect to communist China and Formosa, and things of that kind. During that time these investigations were made, and after they were completed the government took the decision announced on August 7.
I should say in regard to north Atlantic developments that, as I mentioned the other night, the north Atlantic council is to meet in New York a week from this coming Saturday, and it may well be that important decisions will be taken at that meeting. During the last four or five weeks, the deputies of the north Atlantic council members have been meeting almost continuously in London to revise plans for supply, plans for strengthening forces in being, and to revise plans for mutual aid in the light of the situation which has developed since June. There has been an urgency attached to these meetings which possibly did not exist before June. If that is true, all members of the north Atlantic council must take their fair share of responsibility, but there is no doubt that what we had been planning to do before June, to be brought to completion say in a year, a year and a half or two years, is now being planned for completion at an earlier date. Behind all this planning is the desire, and indeed the determination, of the north Atlantic countries to get forces in being in western Europe at the earliest possible date.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
In that connection I was a little worried by the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) the other night. I do not want to misrepresent what he said, but as I understood him it was almost a gospel of despair in regard to the defence of the outlying members of the western European community, and that we should fall back on the Pyrenees. We shall never be able to build up a north Atlantic system on that basis. If we cannot give the members of the north Atlantic community and western Europe the hope that this time they will not have to be liberated but that the enemy can be defeated before their countries are occupied, we shall not be in as strong a position as we should be to meet any attack with our allies.


Mr. Harkness:: I said that is what should be done, but I also said that we should not lose sight of the other alternative if we did not move quickly enough.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate that, but as I understand the situation nothing could be more unfortunate at this stage than to give the impression that the countries of western Europe are expendable under the North Atlantic plan, because if we wish to get help from them

and we cannot defend ourselves without their help-we have to give them the conviction that this time they are not going to be subjected to liberation.
Reference was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) to the formation of a British commonwealth division, as he called it, and the use of the Canadian special brigade in that division. I thought the Minister of National Defence made our position pretty clear on that matter the other afternoon. This brigade from Canada is to be a part of the United Nations forces in Korea if at the time when its training is completed that is the place where it should go. In that connection maybe I should say once again that the brigade is being earmarked not merely for Korea but to carry out our United Nations obligations, where-ever those obligations may arise. If at the time their training is completed Korea is the place, that is the place to which they will go. If it is not Korea, then they will go somewhere else. In that respect we have undertaken to carry out our United Nations commitments, in a way, as I understand it, that no other member of the United Nations has yet done. '
This is a question which I think will be discussed at the forthcoming United Nations assembly. We think that in acting as we have done in respect to the formation of a special brigade, we have started something very important, the importance of which is much


broader than Korea. We think that by this precedent we have begun the establishment of United Nations forces for use not only in Korea but elsewhere. In making their contributions to Korea, we hope that other countries will make them in that form so that the next time this kind of aggression by proxy takes place there will be forces in being not only in Canada but in other countries to deal with such aggression. Of course making our special brigade available to the United Nations in that way does not remove the problem of how it is to be used in Korea if it goes there.
It has been suggested by hon. members opposite that it should become a part of a British commonwealth division. So far as I am concerned, 1 feel that the operation in Korea is not a United States operation. It is not a British commonwealth operation. It is not an operation of members of the British commonwealth. It is a United Nations operation. We have made this brigade available to the United Nations. We have already been discussing with the unified command in Korea-which is in fact in Washington- how the brigade may best be used to accomplish the purpose which we all have in mind. If the parliament of Canada gives consent to our proposal that it should be used for carrying out a United Nations Obligation, the unified command will decide how this brigade is to be used. If the unified command says our Canadian brigade, armed with British-type equipment and accustomed to serving with troops in the commonwealth- as the hon. gentleman has said, one could not serve with better troops-should serve with troops from the commonwealth, that is where that brigade will go. They will be very proud indeed to go there, along with their comrades from Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: What pussyfooting!


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no pussyfooting about that at all. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) had had his way he would have made this brigade available not to the United Nations but to the United Kingdom. We have not done it that way. If however this brigade should be armed with United States-type equipment, then it might be more efficient to use it in some other way. This decision can be left to the unified command, and whatever decision the unified command makes the Canadian government will be happy indeed to comply with it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, now! [DOT]


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If the squawkers are not interested, they can get out of the House of Commons. If that is their contribution to this debate, they can get out of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member proposes to ask a question, he must ask the question and not address the house.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I should like to ask the
minister this question. In view of the fact our troops are going to be commanded by the United Nations commanding officer, who at this time is General MacArthur, is General MacArthur subservient to and under the direction of the President of the United States? When this commander makes a statement, is it for the benefit of all the members of the United Nations or can the President of the United States close the mouth of the United Nations commander at any time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has raised an important and difficult question indeed. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra paid General MacArthur an eloquent tribute this afternoon, and .1 should like to associate myself with it. General MacArthur is now serving in somewhat of a dual capacity. He is the commander of the United States occupation forces in Japan, and in that capacity he receives his orders from the commander in chief of the United States, who is the president. He has also received authority from the security council to exercise command over United Nations forces available for operations in Korea. In that capacity he receives instructions and advice from the security council of the United Nations. The largest portion of the United Nations forces in Korea at the present time are United States forces, and General MacArthur is also commander of those United States forces. In that capacity he gets his instructions from the President of the United States. I do not know whether or not that clarifies the issue. I am inclined to * doubt whether the position can be clarified.
Other points have arisen in the debate on this subject with which I should deal. I hope to do so rather briefly. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made two very useful comments this morning during the course of his eloquent speech. Those comments concerned improving the procedure in the United Nations assembly so that, if at any time in the future there should be a representative of the U.S.S.R. on the security council when a resolution such as the Korean matter came before the council, and it were 69262-15
The Address-Mr. Pearson vetoed, the United Nations would still be able to act to preserve peace. He has suggested that we should improve our procedure with regard to an emergency session of the general assembly, and also that there might well be a commission of that assembly as a permanent agency charged with supervising questions of peace and security. Those are two useful ideas. They have already been advanced by other members of the United Nations within the last few weeks, looking forward to the forthcoming meeting of the assembly. We are discussing them with friendly governments and it may well foe that, as a result of the forthcoming meeting of the assembly, some progress along that line can be made.
The hon. member for Lake Centre also asked me straightforwardly this morning what attitude the government of Canada had taken when the Schuman plan was announced in London last May. The Schuman plan, that wise and imaginative act of French statesmanship, was not one which concerned this government directly. I believe that though we should naturally give leadership wherever it is desirable to give leadership, we should not always be handing out gratuitous advice in matters of this kind to countries whose responsibility in respect of these matters is greater than ours. So we would have to be rather careful of any comments we might make to the United Kingdom government. As it happens, we did informally tell them we thought this was an important and far-reaching plan, the importance of which was possibly greater politically than economically, and that whatever the economic difficulties may be in carrying it out-further consideration of that plan has shown that there will be great difficulty in carrying it out-it would be unwise for any government not to fall in at once with the principle behind this plan to further the integration, politically and economically, of the western European countries. It would be unwise especially not to do everything to encourage the French in any proposal which may heal the age-long conflict between the French and the Teutons. In that sense possibly we did interfere, but it was merely giving the United Kingdom government, if they considered it to be of benefit, the benefit of our general views in respect to this matter. I believe the attitude which western European governments have adopted subsequently to this proposal shows that is the line being taken by them all.
In this debate a great deal has been said about the fact that, while the government makes fine statements, it does not do very much to carry them out. In so far as defence is concerned, I leave the answer to that charge

The Address-Mr. Pearson to my friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). In so far as information is concerned, I do not admit-I know he will not admit-that we are open to the accusation of not giving the house all the information that is proper with regard to the matters with which we are charged. So far as external affairs are concerned I have nothing to apologize for in that respect. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said this afternoon, picking up a white paper from the Department of External Affairs which he found useful in developing his argument, "This tells the whole story". I am glad he found it helpful. In the future it will continue to be our policy, as it has been in the past, to give him all the information we can so that he may be in a position to develop his argument in the light of the whole story. One of these days we may produce a white paper on the Pacific pact, to which we shall ask him to write an appendix.


Howard Charles Green: You are better at white papers than at action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been stated in regard to the economic and social aspects of this question that we talk well but do little. In fact I have been in the happy if at times embarrassing position of listening to my speeches being quoted back at me with every manifestation of approval by certain members of the C.C.F. group. I am not inclined, of course, to take back one word I have said in those speeches, and as other members of the government have said, as to the importance of parallel economic and social action with defence action. The two must go together. I said the other day, and I repeat now, that I hope that we shall never be in a position in this country where defence action is of such a character and of such an extent that we shall not be able to make progress in the direction of social and economic improvement.
But then it has been stated, and the criticism was fairly direct, that while I gave lip service to the necessity of extending this principle in our relations wth other countries, we had done little in the United Nations in that regard. I would ask hon. members to look up the record of Canada in the United Nations. If they do so, I think they will be agreed that our record has not been a bad one; nor have we defaulted on our social and economic obligations in the world assembly.
Our record with regard to post-war relief and rehabilitation is well known. Our record in humanitarian causes there is well known. We were the third largest subscriber to the United Nations children's emergency fund.

We have actively participated in the development of the four point program. In our appropriation last year we also made an interim contribution to that program.
We admit that it will be of no great and permanent value if we defeat the communist armies in the field and do not help to remove in those countries the causes which have made easy communist aggression against them. We shall have to do something in this field, and we shall no doubt be considering that matter at the next United Nations assembly. I do not think that Canada will be behind others in the part that she plays in that field. But there is something I would point out to some of the hon. members who have been most critical in that regard, especially in regard to aid to southeast Asia which we are actively pursuing at the moment and concerning which is meeting in London in a couple of weeks a conference which will be attended by a member of the Canadian government.
I would point out that while we should, and no doubt will, play our proper part in aid to southeast Asia and to other materially underdeveloped countries, those countries themselves should do everything in their power to raise the standards of living of their own people. That means strong and stable government, government as strong and stable as they can find in the present circumstances. It also means that they should devote some of their resources to economic and social development.
For western countries which are bearing quite a heavy burden in the defence against communism, which is a defence not only against communism in our own countries but against communism in their countries, it is a little bit discouraging at times to look around and see in some of these Asian countries what a high proportion of their budget is devoted, not to social and economic progress but to defence itself. In some of the countries that we should like most to help, more than half their present budget is devoted to national defence. If that budget of theirs could be reduced from 50 per cent for national defence to 25 per cent, the need for help from us would not be nearly so great. We are obliged to take that fact into consideration, of course, in trying to assist them.
I have only one further observation to make, Mr. Speaker. More than one speaker opposite has accused this government of complacency and of ministering to that feeling by its statements to parliament and to the country. I do not know of any statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) or of myself which could be

charged as being responsible for encouraging any feeling of complacency in this country in the face of what we are up against. We know what we are up against. I could quote statement after statement of the Prime Minister and of other members of the government designed to bring home to the people of this country a realization of what we are up against; andi similar statements have been, made by hon. gentlemen opposite.
This afternoon the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra criticized strongly indeed the Prime Minister's statement last Friday as being too complacent because he said that the next ten months will be the critical period, that if we can get through those ten months it might be easier in the future and we might look forward to a long period of at least a twilight zone between peace and war. If I may say so, with all respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister is absolutely right. It may not be ten months. It may be eight months. It may be eighteen months. But the year or year and a half ahead is the dangerous period; and if we can get through that period, we may then have time to settle our problems even with those people behind the iron curtain.
If the Prime Minister's statement ministered to complacency and is designed to throw dust in the eyes of our people, what about the statement made at the same time by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew)? I quote from that statement, and I do not object to these words at all, but no doubt the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra may object to them. The leader of the official opposition said this, and I am quoting from his statement as reported at page 115 of Hansard:
I have said that I have great hope.
We all say "Amen" to that.
I believe that hope on my part was increased through some of the contacts I had within the past few weeks.
Then in the concluding paragraph he said, and I again quote from Hansard, at page 116:
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we may well be coming to freedom's crowning hour.
I think those were fine and inspiring words on the part of the leader of the opposition, but they were no finer and no more inspiring than the words of our Prime Minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), but I would not wish an inaccurate impression to be left at this particular point. I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be the first to agree with me that those 69262-15J
The Address-Mr. Pearson words were conditioned on the remark that if we do all we can with the utmost energy now, then that hope can be expressed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I quite agree that the hon. member did say that. But I think that if he reads the Prime Minister's statement and if the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra reads it, they will realize that anything that the Prime Minister said in that respect was also conditional on doing all that we can and should do.
We may have differences in this house, Mr. Speaker, as to how we should do these things, but we have no differences in any part of the house about the fact that they should be done. Our best chance for peace now-and we have all said this so often that it is becoming platitudinous, but it is like so many other platitudes, which become platitudes because they are so true-is in preparation. If we can arm, militarily, economically and socially, to a point where we can convince an aggressor that he has nothing to gain but everything to lose by aggression, then we may get time, and during that time we may be able to take steps which may lead to more permanent peace; because the whole history of humanity shows, if it shows nothing else, that there can be no permanent peace on the basis of armed strength alone. All we can hope for now is a breathing space; and we shall never get a breathing space unless we can convince an aggressor-that is, all of us in this country and other countries-that we are strong enough to defeat aggression.
Maybe we are not strong enough to do that now. But I would remind hon. members that we have strength in the western community, apart from the strength on the land, on the water and in the air. We have strength in regard to our scientific developments; and that strength is standing between us now, possibly, and aggression. While that situation lasts we may be safe. But it will not last for ever. During that time we must build up other forms of strength. If we can do that, we may be safe. If we cannot do that, none of us is complacent about the future. A great scientist-a very great scientist indeed, Mr. Speaker-and a man who knew something not only about science but about war, was asked the other day as to how he thought the next war would be fought. Would it be a pushbutton war? Would it be a purely scientific war? Or would it be a war of the traditional kind? And his answer was: "I do not know what weapons we shall use in the next war, but I know what weapons we shall use in the war after that-rocks".


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, if I were to choose a place in which to take part in this debate I certainly would
228	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis not choose to follow such an able debater as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). That is particularly true at this time because with a great deal of what he said I find myself in complete agreement. I was hoping to follow the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I do not wish to give the impression that he is not a good debater, but I think perhaps he leaves himself more open to attack.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Misinterpretation.


Angus MacInnis: I never misinterpret anybody. The hon. member, I think, left himself open on certain points in his speech. However, I am only going to refer to one or two things which, perhaps, are of minor importance.
Criticism has been made of Canada's unreadiness at this time of need. I would say that that is unfortunate, but I do not believe it is to our discredit. We are in the position of all the western nations, in that after the war we thought we could demobilize our armies and give our attention and our resources to building up the economic and social needs of our people and, as far as we could, of other people as well. If we haven't done all that we should, I believe we haven't done too badly. Now, because we have done that we are meeting this difficult situation without the arms and the men that we might have had if we had applied ourselves, as the Soviet union has done, to arming ourselves first and looking after the economic needs of our people afterwards. I believe if we keep that in mind it will obviate at least a part of our criticism; and that is desirable, because, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said just before he took his seat, we are all in general agreement in this house on the main purpose for which we have come here, namely, to stop aggression in Korea. Any differences we may have on details- though they may be substantial-are small in comparison with that agreement.
I mentioned our unpreparedness. I want to say that it frightens me to hear people in this country and in other countries continually harping on our unpreparedness. If the Soviet union pays any attention to what we say-and I would hope that she does-then she must be convinced by now that there is no possible chance of our being able to defend ourselves. Consequently, broadcasting our weakness is an invitation to her to attack. I would suggest that we stop blazoning to the world our unpreparedness to defend ourselves and get busy with building our defences both military and economic.

May I say just one word about another matter mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and in reply to him, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, namely, General MacArthur? After listening to the explanation of his position by the Secretary of State for External Affairs I am quite satisfied that General MacArthur is a very important man in a very important position. But I have been watching him for many years. As a matter of fact, I had the honour of sitting in at a conference at one time in which he was the leading figure, and I am satisfied that General MacArthur is convinced that he receives instructions from a higher authority than the President of the United States, and because he believes that he often acts on it.
I should like to comment on the reference made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to the Highland regiments and their place in the force that we would send to Korea, and his proposal that there should be a commonwealth force. I am sorry that those points should be raised at this time, because if there is anything that is required today it is that the armies fighting in Korea should be more a United Nations force and not less. The criticism one hears on every hand is that this is a United States war. If we are to obviate that criticism the force fighting in Korea will have to be not a United States army or a commonwealth army, but a United Nations army in every respect.
As to the place of Highland regiments, no one is more proud of the Highlanders as fighting men than I am. Whether they will be in a separate regiment limited to themselves and the bagpipes, or whether they are fighting with other soldiers in the United Nations army, I am sure they will give a good account of themselves, and that is the important thing in any war.
I mentioned that in this house we are all agreed on the main purpose that brought us here. I am not going to engage in any criticism that would indicate that I have any difference of opinion on that point, because I have not. I should like to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he spoke in the debate the other evening and told us that we should make it more clear to the people of Canada than we have done so far as to why we are in Korea, and why we must be there until the aggressors are defeated. I am sure they are not clear on the issue, and there is a great deal of propaganda circulated to confuse them.
The evening before I left home to come here I received a telephone call from a young

man who said he wanted to make an appointment to see me. He did not state the purpose of his visit. I set an appointed hour, and he came in company with five or six other young people between the ages of about twenty and twenty-seven or twenty-eight. He stated as the purpose of his visit that he wanted to [DOT] know what my views were on the Korean war. I found out soon that they belonged to a communist youth organization. What would amaze anyone with whom these young people talked is how well they were briefed on what to say-plausible arguments as to why we should not be helping the United States in a civil war in Korea.
Before their arrival another man left a leaflet almost the size of half a page of a newspaper at my door. The purposes of the leaflet was to convince people why they should sign the so-called Stockholm peace petition. Those leaflets would be left at the door of every house not only in Vancouver, but in every city in Canada.
In my opinion the government and those who agree with the government's policy have not taken as much time to make the position of Canada clear as these people are taking to confuse it by the use of lies, half-lies, and scarcely any truth at all. I suggest to the government that that must be done, because in a democratic country more than military equipment and a fighting force is required. We will have to have the understanding and support of the people in every community in Canada, because if we do not have that there will be confusion of thought of which our opponents will take advantage on every possible occasion.
I decided to speak along this line because my attention has been focused in that direction by reading the reports of war correspondents in the field and other correspondents who are watching this situation. In my opinion we should without delay answer some of the questions people are asking. What are our intentions in Korea? If we succeed in driving the North Koreans back to the 38th parallel, are we going to stop there or are we going to go on beyond that? As this is a United Nations force, I agree that it is not altogether within our right to say what a United Nations army is going to do when it reaches that point; but our government certainly should make it clear what is their opinion on the issue.
Thomas J. Hamilton, New York Times staff correspondent at Lake Success, raises the question in an article which appears in the
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis News-Herald of Vancouver on August 25. Writing on this subject he says:
It has been assumed that once the entire peninsula is under United Nations control, the next thing would be to hold elections to decide the further government, and Austin's speech revealed that the United States wants them to be held on the basis that the Republic of Korea's jurisdiction would be extended over North Korea automatically.
I suggest to those who feel that the United Nations forces should go beyond the 38th parallel that if we want to start a third world war that would be the best way to start it. The Soviet union may not move into this fight until an attempt is made-if it is made-to cross that boundary. But surely no one can be so naive as to expect that the Soviet union would give up any jurisdiction or any influence it considers it has by arrangement or by treaty, and allow the forces of the United Nations to go beyond the 38th parallel.
I suggest that point should be made clear, and that the government should state where it stands in the matter. It should be made *clear before we ask our soldiers to enlist.
In regard to holding an election in the whole of Korea this correspondent states, in the same article:
The difficulty is that there is a strong probability that this would result in an over-all communist majority if the elections were held before the communization of North Korea had been undone, and before a United Nations reconstruction program had assuaged the bitterness of North and South Korea against the destruction of their homes during their liberation by United Nations forces. In that case communism would win by an election what it failed to obtain by an invasion.
That is important, too, because it puts before us the point emphasized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on Thursday and again today, and which has been emphasized repeatedly in the house by various speakers, that if we win a victory by arms and do nothing else to build the economy of that country, to set the people free from their exploiters, we have lost the war, no matter what military victories we may have achieved. I suggest to the government that those are important points.
I should like to refer to another matter which has been mentioned in this debate by a number of speakers and which wa^ referred to particularly by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I refer to Formosa. I listened with interest to the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in that regard and I agree completely with it, as do all the members of the group with which I am associated. It has been suggested that Chiang Kai-shek should be told to get out of Formosa and the people permitted to freely elect their own government. That is a fine sentiment, and no one

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis would be more pleased to see it carried out than I, but there is no possibility of its happening. No sooner would Chiang get out than the communists would come in.


An hon. Member:: How do you know that?


Angus MacInnis: I know it because it is the pattern of communist aggression everywhere. The kind of government the people of Formosa might elect would have no bearing whatsoever on the matter. It might be as progressive as any government could possibly be, but the more progressive it was the more necessary it would be for the communists to destroy it. If we do not understand that, we do not understand communism. With the world situation we have today the principle of nations being free to do as they would like has disappeared except in the case of those nations strong enough in themselves or protected by a combination of strong nations. The Soviet union and its satellites and fifth columns do not respect the integrity of any government, as may be ascertained by anyone who will give a little study to the history of our times.
I happened to be present at the meetings of the United Nations assembly in 1947 when the commission for Korea was set up against the opposition of the representatives of the Soviet and other communist governments, including the government of Yugoslavia. I believe it was at that time that another commission was set up for Greece. I remember, too, the criticisms that were made of the British and United States governments for some time because they were supposed to be supporting a reactionary government in Greece. It is a strange phenomenon, but it does exist, that if you have a conservative 

I am not using that as a name; I am using it as a state of mind-or reactionary government confronted with communist aggression the tendency is for it to become more reactionary.
There is no doubt that from 1946 up until the time the election was held recently the government of Greece was reactionary enough to suit the most reactionary. But it will be remembered that as soon as Yugoslavia fell out with the cominform and withdrew support from the Greek guerrillas the revolutionary armies disintegrated like a fog before the sun. The next thing that happened was the holding of an election by the Greek people who threw out the reactionary, semifascist government and elected one more to their liking.
I point that out to indicate that there is no hope of a nation exercising properly the rights of democracy if they do not feel that they are free to do so. Such is the nature of


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: You need not confine it to people working for wages.


Angus MacInnis: Well, I might agree with my friend.


Mr. Cardiff:: You might just as well. You have not any alternative.


Angus MacInnis: The suggestion was made in this debate that in order to bring prices down it would be a good thing for the workers to extend their hours of work, and instead of wanting a forty-hour week to work for forty-four or forty-eight hours. I would agree with that proposal under certain conditions.	.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: At least they would have less time to spend their money.


Angus MacInnis: Yes; they would have less time to spend what they earn. That may be true, but it is also true that they would be producing more for others to spend and they would not necessarily get more themselves.


Mr. Gibson:: The country to spend.


Angus MacInnis: Just tell me who is the country.


John Lambert Gibson: The government.


Angus MacInnis: No, the government is not the country.


Mr. Brooks:: They just think they are.


Angus MacInnis: As the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) says, they may think they
The Address[DOT]-Mr. Maclnnis are but they are not. I should like to read into the record what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham), as recorded at page 162 of Hansard. It is as follows:
Would it not be wisdom for this country now, before our backs are to the wall, to forget about shorter hours, and to go to a forty-four or forty-eight hour week? The price of freedom is, in my opinion, not money, but production.
May I go this far with my hon. friend and say that I am convinced, not just because a war is being waged, that the greatest need not only of Canada but of the world today is greater production. The next greatest need is better distribution of that production. Unless we have better distribution we shall not have more wealth to distribute. No trade union leader or anyone else can tell the workers today to produce more unless he can assure them that, not only in war but also in peace, the more they work the more they will have and the better off they will be. That has not been the experience of the workers. As far back as their memory goes, their experience has been that they are poor not when goods are scarce but when [DOT] goods are plentiful, because it is then they are unemployed. It is then that they have to sell their labour for what employers are willing to pay.
If you can assure the worker that the more he produces the better off he will be, the more he will have, the better the clothes his family will have, and the better he can educate his children, I am sure you will have no difficulty with the worker. I am also sure that there is no other way to make an attack on mass poverty, not of distant parts or undeveloped countries, but the mass poverty in Canada. There is no other way to make a mass attack except by increasing the production of those things that are useful to us, and then by more equitable distribution. I hope that before the session is over the people of Canada may have some assurance that their wages will buy as much next week as they bought this week, and that they will buy as much the week after, and the week after that. If we do not do so we are going to be faced with a lot of trouble. It will not do to say that there is a war on, and that we ought to be patriotic. There are sufficient resources, sufficient skill and sufficient labour in this country to keep up our standard of living, and to keep up our social services, even while we are preparing for a war and even while we are engaged in a war. I do not say that that could continue over a long period of time. As a matter of fact the world will soon be confronted with an inability to carry on a war because of a lack of resources due to the rate at which war consumes certain essential

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
resources. But we have in Canada the resources to keep up our standard of living, and to improve the standard of living of the lower paid groups; to keep up our social services and still to provide for war. If we< organize our human and material resources properly, all that can be accomplished. If we do not do that, let me say again that we are in for trouble.
I should like to draw attention to a press release sent out by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) on August 29. This release refers to the improved employment picture for men. Then there is this paragraph:
The employment picture for women was not quite so favourable. At August 17, there were 56,000 applications for employment from women on hand with the national employment service. This amounted to 3.5 per cent of the women in the labour force and was 14,600 higher than a year ago. The increase in the number of women looking for work is explained in part by the decline in employment in the textiles and service industries from last year, and in part by the greater number of married women seeking work today.
Why do married women seek work? Essentially, married women seek work because the head of the family does not bring in sufficient income to feed and clothe the family. That may not always be the case. It may not be the case where there is no family. But where there is a family, I am satisfied that 999 mothers out of every 1,000 want to be with their families and not looking for work in a factory or anywhere else.
At the beginning of this session we had a matter before us concerning labour. I have been impressed, not just this session and not just this year, with all the legal processes that labour must go through before it can get an increase in the price of the commodity it has to sell. How easy it is for others to raise the price of their commodities. I noticed in the newspapers that the rubber companies increased the price of rubber twice within the last few weeks. There was an increase of seven per cent and then an increase of fifteen per cent in the price of passenger car tires and an increase of twenty per cent in the price of truck tires. I did not hear of any conciliation board or any arbitration board being set up to pass on these increases or to find out if they were necessary. The prices were raised, and the rest of us went on paying the increased prices. There was no question about how much this would increase the cost of living for others. But let the worker ask for four cents an hour and it takes him fourteen months of negotiations, conciliation boards, et cetera, if he lives that long, as well as other desperate actions before he can get it. Similar increases are taking place in the price of sugar, of meat, and other essential things we use. I ask this government what they are going to do to protect the people of Canada.

I am supporting them in everything they want to do in Korea to protect the world, but I do not believe we should forget our own people at home.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, when the leader of this group spoke in this debate he stated that we would support the building up of a special force to be placed at the disposal of the security council in order to meet our general commitments to the United Nations Organization. It is largely on that matter that I wish to speak tonight.
First of all, I may state that we in this group have no intention of trying to make any political capital out of the present situation because we consider that the matter is altogether too serious for that kind of thing; and we feel that every member should do everything in his power at this time to help the government in a constructive way. As a matter of fact, what I have to say tonight will be largely what I have already stated in my constituency during a series of meetings that I held prior to this session.
When South Korea was attacked by the North Korean forces the Secretary General of the United Nations approached the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for a ground force to be sent to Korea; and as we all know, the Prime Minister refused to send a ground force at that time. For that he was severely criticized by a portion of the press both in this country and in the United States. Nevertheless I feel that the Prime Minister was absolutely justified in the stand that he took, because we had only one brigade of trained troops. It is all very well to say that we should have had more, but we must face the situation as it is and not as it might have been. Had we sent that brigade to Korea, and had it become engaged in battle and suffered severe losses, we of course would not have had the necessary reinforcements to send to it. Then again, we have specific commitments under the North Atlantic treaty, and that brigade is needed in Canada to fulfil those commitments and also for the defence of Canada.
I do not want to see another Hong Kong where ill-trained and ill-equipped men were sent into battle. I think it is extremely important that any men who are sent out of this country shall be properly trained and properly equipped, and that no man should be sent from the country until he has reached that degree of perfection.

It will be recalled that, at the time the United Nations Organization was first set up, we in this group expressed lack of confidence in its ability to maintain peace; and at that time we gave a number of reasons why we felt that way. I am going to refer to only one or two of the reasons tonight, but they are reasons that I think are just as strong today as they were then.
First of all, we felt that some of the more powerful nations that were supporting the United Nations Organization lacked either the will or the desire to implement policies that were absolutely essential to the maintenance of peace. I listened with interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he stated that you cannot hope to defeat communism by force of arms alone, that you must have economic and social reforms and that economic aid must be granted to the weaker nations. I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. But my mind goes back to the year 1944 when we were discussing proposals for international finance and trade policies to be instituted in the post-war world; we were discussing the matter in the reconstruction committee at the time, and the deputy minister of finance was one of the main witnesses.
We took the stand that lend-lease and mutual aid should be continued in the postwar world in order to help to bring about the rehabilitation of the devastated areas and that, when that task had been completed, there would then be an obligation on the part of the western world to accept freely from the European nations exports in exchange for her exports to them. I recall that at that time that suggestion was criticized by the deputy minister of finance as being idealistic. I wonder if any ministers of the government would still take that stand or support the deputy minister of finance by saying that that is an idealistic stand to take today? As a matter of fact, I think the government has moved quite a long way in that direction. Unfortunately, however, we are still falling far short of implementing policies that will make it possible to distribute surpluses to needy nations.
It will be recalled that the food and agriculture organization was set up under the United Nations Organization. Various members of that organization from time to time have stressed the fact that never again would nations tolerate a situation in which food was destroyed or in which the production of food was curtailed, so long as there were starving people in the world. The FAO, in order to deal with that very situation, brought down a proposal that would have made it possible
The Address-Mr. Quelch to distribute surplus foods to needy nations. It was termed the international commodity clearing house. Unfortunately, that proposal was turned down by the FAO conference. Unfortunately, also, Canada voted against that proposal.
Yet what is the situation? Even as late as last year, the United States had surplus foods to the amount of about $4 billion. A great deal of that food rotted or was destroyed. Even here in Canada the farmers of western Canada this spring were urged to reduce their acreage of wheat by three million acres because there might be a surplus of wheat. When the chairman of the wheat board was before the committee on agriculture, I askedi him whether or not, in his opinion, there was any danger of a surplus of wheat, having regard to the actual needs of the nations of the world. He said no. Then he went on to say that having regard to the ability of the nations to pay us in the type of exchange that we wanted for that wheat, there might be a surplus.
I just cite that example to show that we are still a long way from solving the problem of getting our surplus food to needy people. It is all very well to talk about the need for increasing production in the world today; but it is of little use to increase the production of food unless at the same time you take steps to ensure that that food can be distributed to the people who need it. Just imagine what the reaction of the people in Asia must be when they read of large surpluses of food accumulating in the western world and of that food being allowed to rot while at the same time there are millions of people starving in Asia. In that regard I say the government is long on words and short on actions, because when the proposal for an international commodity clearing house was put before them the representatives of this government turned it down without, mind you, having any alternative proposal whereby surplus food could be got to needy nations.
When the United Nations Organization was first set up we heard, and even today we hear, a lot of talk about the United Nations Organization providing for collective security. I would say that there is no security under the United Nations Organization. All it provides for is collective action, and collective action and collective security are two different things.
Even at the time we were discussing the setting up of the United Nations Organization it was becoming quite evident that the world was becoming divided into two separate
234	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Quelch camps, the communist camp and the anticommunist camp, or, shall we say, the democratic camp. And each of those camps was doing everything in its power to collect as many other nations to its support as possible. The U.S.S.R. were depending largely upon encouraging minority groups to overthrow governments, to get their help. We were depending largely, to put it crudely, upon a form of economic bribery. That is to say, we promised certain nations that if they signed certain agreements with us we would grant them economic aid. And therefore today we have a situation where instead of one world that we heard so much about at one time, we have two distinct worlds, two distinct camps, the communist camp and the anti-communist camp, and both of these camps today are doing everything in their power to build up their armed forces.
With a situation like that, how can anybody talk about collective security? We are back practically to the old idea of balance of power. Each of these camps is trying to build up a balance of power that would be greater than that of the other camp. If war does come, does anybody think that the preparation so made will possibly provide for security? Win or lose, it will mean the wholesale destruction of cities in both camps and the wholesale slaughter of thousands or millions of people. Therefore the word "security" is altogether the wrong type of word to use in regard to that matter.
The government has been charged with a lack of preparedness. But when that charge is made I always keep in mind the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did everything in his power, when he was secretary of state for external affairs, to get the member nations of the United Nations Organization to agree definitely to commit themselves to provide armed forces toward an international force, and up to this year no nation, apparently, had been willing to commit itself. Therefore, largely as a result of the failure of the United Nations Organization to set up an international army which could be placed at the disposal of the security council, we had the Atlantic treaty signed, under which twelve nations agreed to come to each other's assistance in the event of aggression. And it is of course under that treaty that we have specific commitments. That is one reason, as I have already said, that I thought the Prime Minister was absolutely justified in refusing to send to Korea the one brigade we had.
We often hear, and we have heard during this session, the question asked, what are we fighting for in Korea? I must admit that I am not satisfied with most of the declarations 

that have been made. Some hon. members suggested that we are fighting to free Korea. I wonder whether that is the reason. I wonder, if a free expression of thought could have been taken from the Koreans as a whole as to whether or not they wanted us to intervene, whether they would have said yes, knowing full well that intervention by us must mean the wholesale destruction of their towns, their villages, their railways, their assets and the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of civilians. I think probably they . would have considered the cost too high, and said that they were not prepared to defend their so-called freedom at that price. Even if we win the war, have they any assurance that they will really have freedom? No, Mr. Speaker, I think the real thing that we are fighting for in this war is to try to create a prestige for the United Nations Organization that they have never had in the past. That is, that it was a warning to the communist nations that in future any acts of aggression by them against any one of the members of the United Nations Organization will be met by force. That in itself may help to prevent acts of aggression against other nations, but in the meantime I would say that Korea is having to be the goat in the case.
It is all very well for people to say it is better to fight in Korea than in Canada. From our point of view that is so, but from the point of view of the people of Korea I do not think they are anxious that the fight should take place in their country. They would just as soon have the fight carried on in another part of the world.
On the other hand, I think we have to avoid the danger of having our forces dissipated over too great an area. It seems to me that if we should spread our forces over too great an area of the world we shall be playing right into the hands of the U.S.S.R. It has been suggested that the communist forces never expected the United Nations Organization to intervene in Korea. The fact that they have such large forces there shows quite clearly,
I would say, that even if they did not expect it they were fully prepared for that eventuality. I feel that that is actually what they were hoping for. The war in Korea may be merely looked upon as a first move on the checkerboard, to be followed by subsequent moves. In dealing with that first move we must keep in mind that there will be other moves that we shall have to deal with in the future, and we must maintain our forces in such a way that we shall be ready to meet subsequent moves.
Apparently the Prime Minister looks upon the next ten months as the critical ones, and
23S

then expects a long period without war. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to that this afternoon and pointed out that in reality the Prime Minister was agreeing with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) had already said. I hope the Prime Minister is right when he says that after the war in Korea is brought to a successful conclusion we may look for a long period of peace. On the other hand, if the war in Korea is finished within ten months I would say it will only be because the U.S.S.R. and China have not participated.
If the U.S.S.R. and China come to the support of northern Korea, then I do not think that anyone would suggest for one minute that that war would be over in ten months. If the U.S.S.R. and China keep out of the Korean war it will mean that at the end of the Korean war the forces of the U.S.S.R. and China will be intact. Therefore one would be extremely optimistic to look for a long period of peace after Korea, whilst the tremendous forces of the U.S.S.R. and China are intact; unless in the meantime we are able to reach a better understanding with these countries.
I think an important step that must be taken is to establish economic and trade policies that will provide not only for the maximum production of food, but for its distribution to the needy peoples of the world. For so long as you have starvation in any part of the world you have a fertile breeding ground for communism. We have done a lot of talking about that question in the last five years, but have made very little progress toward its solution, and practically no progress so far as Asia is concerned.
In other words, we cannot hope to build a lasting peace upon a foundation of economic war, such as we have had even in the last five years, since the end of the second world war. Therefore I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that we should demonstrate to the world what can be done by a democratic country blessed with great natural resources.
In order to bring about the maximum production that is so essential for our war effort and for the establishment of peace, I believe certain steps are absolutely essential at this time. First of all, in my view, price controls and subsidies should be established immediately in order to keep down the cost of living and to ensure fair prices to primary producers, as well as to prevent further labour disputes, because undoubtedly the high cost of living is one of the chief causes of labour unrest at the present time. Then I believe the government should go ahead with its irrigation program. I know it is 69262-16j
The Address-Mr. Quelch being said in many places that, now that war has come, we have to increase our defence expenditures, and that such things as irrigation will have to be held in abeyance. But if it is so important to maintain the maximum production of food, then irrigation is one of the surest ways of assuring that we shall be able to maintain that high level of production.
For example, I should like hon. members to visit the constituency of Acadia this year. The eastern part of that constituency has always been referred to as one of semipermanent drought. Yet this year for the first time since 1927 there is a very substantial crop in that district, one which will run from twenty to forty bushels to the acre. The only reason we have a crop in that area this year is that we have had a substantial amount of rainfall. This shows what might be done if irrigation were put in there.
The government has made a considerable amount of progress on these projects and I hope it will continue to proceed with them, even though the war may develop in its intensity. One other question, namely that of old age security: I have seen a number of articles in the financial press to the effect that, because we are now having to increase our defence expenditures, recommendations for the betterment of old age pensioners will have to be held in abeyance. I say the need for taking care of the old age pensioners will be that much greater, and that there is absolutely no excuse for holding in abeyance the recommendations made by the special committee to deal with old age security.
In closing let me say that in order to have an effective defence program we must proceed hand in hand with an effective program of economic development.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I first, like those who have preceded me in the debate, extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do not intend at this time to enter into a discussion of the over-all picture of national defence, as some of the experts who have spoken before me have done. I shall leave that phase of the matter to those who are better qualified to speak with respect to it.
There are a few observations, however, I should like to make, and I make them because of talks I have had with various people in my constituency. I should like to bring their ideas and thoughts to the attention of the government and hon. members generally. Possibly if I were choosing a text to use at this time I would quote from a short article
236	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. O. White appearing in the Financial Times of September 1, which deals with the keynote address of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and which states in part:
The keynote was sounded by defence minister Brooke Claxton when he stated that there were not many targets in the country which would appear important enough to warrant atomic attack.
That seems to me a very easy way to gloss over a serious situation. Using that as a basis for my remarks I shall pass on to some of the statements made by other speakers. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said, in effect, "Let us quit talking about unpreparedness. Let us start building our defences all along the line." I think those were his words. But that is the trouble; the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence claim that this has already been done. There is a difference of opinion on that point. One thing we do know is that $1,500 million has been spent, and all we have to show for it is about one brigade. The people back home are asking me, "What did you do with all that money?" They realize that they are paying, in income tax and indirect taxation of one kind or another, a very considerable sum. Partly because of that they find it difficult to buy the necessities of life-food, shelter and clothing.
May I also extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) upon the very splendid speech he made dealing with our over-all defence picture, in which he tried to bring to the House of Commons and the people of Canada the seriousness of the situation, without at the same time attempting to make us jittery. The Minister of National Defence addressed the house in a carefully prepared speech coolly calculated to allay any fears and, if that were possible, to increase our complacency.
Let me ask this question: Did Churchill do harm to the cause in 1940 when he told the British people that he had nothing to offer but toil, sweat, blood and tears? No; he prepared them for the difficult years ahead

prepared not only the British nation but peoples throughout the world. That is quite different from the story we are told all across the board. Then, along with what we are told is the policy of hush-hush-"We dare not tell you what we are doing, for security reasons." That is just an excuse, a way out, for the government to get out from under the things they have not done, and so that they will not have to tell the people the truth.
The fact is they dare not tell the truth. Never was so little for so much-a billion and a half, and practically nothing to show for it. Some members of the government have


spoken in an abstract way. If I were asked whether I knew what they were going to do I would be at a loss to answer. I hope no one will have any doubt after I conclude as to what I mean.
The papers today tell us that our defence expenditures will be at least $625 million and probably plus that amount. I shall return again to that matter. People are asking what is being done with all this money. There is a suspicion in the minds of many people that we have built up an armchair army and will have to build up another one before we can go to Korea. I do not think the people are complaining about taxation so long as they know that the dollars are being spent in an efficient way and for the things we need. But there is considerable doubt that that is being done with the hard-earned dollars of the people.
For the last three or four sessions the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has told us that our defences were adequate, that we were prepared and that everything was being done. Saturday Night of August 22 says, "Now a real defence". Just by a stroke of the pen by the minister we are supposed to have the real thing. I do not think anyone believes that, not even the editor of Saturday Night.
What we need is proper air defence which would provide the most modern and flexible type of defence. Our present air defence is woefully weak. An article was reprinted in the Ottawa Journal of August 5, 1950, which had appeared in Canadian Aviation and I should like to quote briefly as follows:
. . . defence minister Claxton's public assurances that we are able to repel any invasion of our territory. It is obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of our air power that our immediate defensive strength is pitiful.
And again:
The argument that "Eagle" was only a battalion-level exercise implied that there were significant air units elsewhere. That was not true. It is still not true today.
The aviation authorities should know what they are saying. That article has been reprinted many times and I do not think it can be denied to the satisfaction of many people in this country. We require fighter planes just as they required fighter planes at Pearl Harbor. We all recall the sneak attack that was made there and we should realize how vulnerable we are to similar attacks. After repeated assurances in the last two or three sessions that our defences were adequate we are now purchasing 100 obsolete secondhand planes.
There are three basic needs. First, air fighters; second, a mobile army to protect our

land areas; and, third a fleet to help to protect our enormous coast lines. That will be difficult but it is a problem that must be faced. Probably I should be a little more detailed as to our defence needs. In this connection I should like to refer again to the statement that there were not many strategic targets in Canada for atomic bombing. Twelve well placed bombs could do considerable damage in Ontario. Six could put our hydro power projects out of business; three could cripple our petroleum industry and three could bottle up our inland waterways.
The industrial heart of Canada would be stilled and the agricultural areas of the province would be back to the days of the horse. It would not be a question of our providing food for our allies, it would be a question of having enough food for our own people right here in Canada. Last winter in the London area there was a little local ice storm which tied up agricultural production. Most farms in Ontario are geared to hydroelectric power and we should realize how vulnerable we are in this connection. There are no anti-aircraft installations at any of our power plants nor are there fighter planes immediately available to protect them. What a hope!
As an indication of how lackadaisical we are about our defences, might I mention that on August 5, the day after the funeral of the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, I was in Ottawa and wished to take up one or two matters with the Department of National Defence that morning. But not one telephone in either the minister's office or the office of his deputies was answered, and this at a time when we were practically at war. I know that the civil service have a holiday on Saturdays but it seems to me that there should be some way of staggering the staffs so that there would be someone in the office to answer the telephones.
I should like to compliment the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) upon the contribution he made to this debate. I think we all appreciate his practical homespun philosophy and ability to put a finger on the sore spots. The hon. member referred to some of the economic sore spots in Canada's economy. The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) naively admitted that the strike legislation was compulsory. It was simply a brickbat in a chocolate box, although his party has tried to deny it. On page one of the Globe and Mail of September 2 there is the heading, "Limited price control".
I wonder to what price control will be limited? Will it be limited to labour and agriculture? During the last war labour was required to give an honest day's work and agriculture was supposed to and did produce
The Address-Mr. H. O. White butter and eggs which were not short in either weight or count. But if you bought a shirt or a pair of shoes you found that they were not of the same quality as when the price ceilings went on. The prices might just as well have been allowed to double as to have a shirt or a pair of shoes that would last only half as long. An indication of that occurred not too long ago. I have another clipping from yesterday's Globe and Mail, the heading of the article reading:
Living costs at peak, up full point in July.
Toward the end of the article it reads:
But the Canadian farm prices index dropped from 154.3 on July 28 to 142.7 on August 4. . .
While all other things were going up, apparently agricultural prices were going down. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin) will recall that, when the deals were being made about Ontario grown winter wheat, its price went down from $2.10 to $1.65. The farmers were told, "Well, you store it, hold it, and everything will be all right.'" Nevertheless the price of bread went up a cent the next week. People got caught both, ways. When the war was over, and during two election campaigns, people were told that the agricultural prices support board would see them over the tough spots. Never was a greater hoax perpetrated on the farming population of this country than the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did any producer ever make use of it?


Harry Oliver White: You know very well what happened.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I don't know anything about it.


Harry Oliver White: I would think so from what happened.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those who called on me certainly needed leadership on their marketing problem.


Harry Oliver White: If a farmer sold a head of lettuce or a cabbage on the market for one cent more than the price ceiling his name was in the paper; but were the names of those fellows who sold second-class goods for first-class ever published? Was anything said about them? Not a word. We hear quite a lot about the purchasing power of the dollar, but in 1949 an hour's labour bought 42 per cent more cheese than it did in 1939. In 1949 an hour's labour bought 68 per cent more eggs, based on the average price and not the low price of eggs, and 20 per cent more bacon. Taxation and other things have used up the consumers' dollars so that they find: it difficult to purchase these things.
238	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bryce
Then there are the regulations dealing with many of the products that farmers have to buy. I am thinking more particularly now of stock feed, tonics, and so on. Primary producers are required to put practically complete information about their products on the containers, but goods are being brought into this country that are not properly marked. There may be a pound of salt or fifty pounds of salt. Farmers are paying high prices for some of these goods not knowing what is in them. I think these people should be made to live up to the same regulations as the primary producers.
I am not going to go into further detail except to endorse the thought of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that we must also put our own house in order. If we are going to fight a battle of ideas we must be prepared militarily and economically to fight that battle.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I am not going to touch on Korea. I have read a lot about Korea, and I have had quite a few conversations with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), who seems to know a good deal about the situation, having lived in that country. So far as defence is concerned I am going to leave that alone, although I was in the army and perhaps could talk about defence a little better than some of those who were never in the armed forces.
I learned a lot in the army. Perhaps I learned a lot of things that it would have been better for me not to learn.
Tonight I want to touch on the question of rising prices. I think what is taking place in this country at the present time is most serious. It is a tremendously big subject and covers a great amount of territory. I am sure nobody wants me to detain the house very long, and I am only going to refer to the prices of one or two articles that are annoying not only to me but to many of my constituents. I should like to deal with implement prices. In 1946 I spoke in the house about the price of farm implements at a time when the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, the then minister of finance, introduced a motion to increase implement dealers' prices by 12J per cent. At that time the minister had this to say, as recorded at page 894 of Hansard for April 15, 1946:
The wartime prices and trade board have satisfied themselves that 12J per cent will be sufficient to enable the companies to carry on; but they are also satisfied that, whatever the profit position may have been during the war on their war business, there is now such a drop in their profits that those profits for the ensuing year are sure to be less than average profits of the period 1936-1939.
On the same page you will find two communications, one from the Cockshutt Plow


company and the other from James S. Duncan of the Massey-Harris company. I want to read them for the benefit of the new members who did not hear them read at that time. This is what the Cockshutt Plow company had to say:
The recent increase of 121 per cent in the retail prices of farm implements is completely inadequate to cover increases in material labour and over-all costs since ceiling prices were set. While necessity for controls is appreciated such controls should be fair and equitable. Implement manufacturers should not be forced to accept staggering increases in costs without being allowed to adjust selling prices proportionately. Otherwise the industry will find itself in straitened circumstances and will be unable to carry on necessary production. The increase required by our company to provide sound operation is over 25 per cent as outlined in our submission to the wartime prices and trade board. The increase authorized by them is insufficient and will place our company in an unsound and unsatisfactory position unless augmented by a subsidy. We therefore respectfully request the matter of increases in prices of farm implements be given further consideration. Our company is in no position to manufacture implements on a losing basis.
That is what the Cockshutt Plow company had to say. I shall now read Mr. Duncan's complaint. It is as follows:
Reference recent ruling farm implement prices. Decision taken wartime prices and trade board most disappointing having in mind we submitted conclusive evidence cost advances justifying our request substantially greater percentage increase. I appreciate your difficulty and recognize that if inflationary tendencies are to be controlled that all must be prepared to make sacrifices. The inescapable fact is however that cumulative cost advances since basic period and impending increases in material and labour costs make further increases selling prices imperative if our company is to continue to operate on sound basis. Recent twelve and a half per cent adjustment can only be regarded therefore as temporary measure of relief.
James S. Duncan.
From those two letters one can see that the gentlemen representing the companies were trying to prove that they would go broke if they did not get further increases. I said at that time, and I think it will be found on page 1777 of Hansard of May 22, 1946, that in 1938 the shares of the Cockshutt Plow company were quoted at $7, while the shares of the Massey-Harris company were quoted at $5.25. The day I was speaking in the house the shares had advanced to $16f for the Cockshutt company, while the shares of -the Massey-Harris company had advanced to $17J. This showed that when this application was being made there was a greater expectancy of profit than there had ever been before. From the Financial Post I find that the Cockshutt Plow company shares are now quoted at $18, and the Massey-Harris shares have advanced to $32. This indicates that both companies are in a sound financial position.

At the beginning of the forties a tractor could be purchased for approximately $1200. Today practically the same tractor costs $3000. Going back to the early forties again, a combine could be purchased for about $1,800, while today a combine sells for anywhere from $4,800 to $5,500; some of them are a little less and some are a bit more. Let us look at the net earnings of the Cockshutt Plow company. They were as follows: 1945, $266,159; 1946, $361,925; 1947, $731,439; 1948, $2,062,002; 1949, $3,070,013. This is the company that needed more than 12-J per cent to keep the business on a sound basis.
Let us look at the Massey-Harris company. The net earnings of that company were as follows: 1945, $1,588,480; 1946, $2,125,570; 1947, $4,084,067; 1948, $9,044,761; for the next eleven months only, not a complete year, the earnings were $13,367,416. If this government allows that sort of thing, then it should not be a government. It is a disgrace to permit a thing like that to continue. Every man is entitled to a fair return for his labour or a fair return on his investment, but when one finds a company making a million and a half in 1945 and making $13 million in 1949, there is something radically wrong. The Liberal party today is no longer the Liberal party of the time when I was a boy. At that time they looked after the underdog but it appears now that they are looking after the big business interests and no one else. With all the expense of labour and raw material that these companies claim to have, they are still making more money than they ever made before. I know that these companies must have profits to be successful, but it does seem to me they are taking more than they should.
Everyone maintains that the farmer is prosperous today. If the farmer is taking the opportunity of replenishing his farm machinery at today's prices, then he has not very much laid by for a rainy day. When wheat was a dollar per bushel he could buy a tractor for $1,200. Today, with wheat around $1.50 per bushel or whatever the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will give, the farmer has to pay double the price for his tractor. So far as a combine is concerned the same thing applies, because the cost of that is up about two and a half times what it was in the early forties. When one talks about the prosperity of the farmer, one always talks about the price of beef and the high price the farmer receives for cattle. I think the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) talked last week about beef prices, and agreed that the farmer was
The Address-Mr. Bryce receiving about 28J cents per pound. Neither mentioned the price of feeders before they were fed.


Mr. Blackmore:: Oh, yes; I did.


William Scottie Bryce: They both talked about cattle that were bred on the range and fed on the range.


John Horne Blackmore: No, I talked about the cost of production.


William Scottie Bryce: I am glad you did that. I readily admit that the farmer is receiving the best price he ever got for his cattle, but do not let us forget he is paying $60 per ton for hay and the cost of the rest of his feed supplies is very high. Do not let us forget that the farmer does not set the prices for the cattle; that is done by the packing companies. The packing companies are not cutting down on their profits, either. According to a survey of corporate securities by the Financial Post, Canada Packers' net profits were as follows: 1945,	$1,274,811;	1946,	$1,816,781;	1947,
$2,059,644; 1948, $2,182,300; 1949, $2,807,237; 1950, the highest profits they ever made, amounted to $3,480,212.
I have just indicated that in the fields about which I have been talking there was no necessity for price increases. The companies concerned were not suffering from low profits. Let me give you one or two more examples, of which sugar is the most outstanding. I have a clipping here from one of the Winnipeg papers but I omitted to mark which one; it was either the Winnipeg Free Press or the Winnipeg Tribune. It says:
Winnipeg prices may rise as costs soar elsewhere
Corresponding price increases and prospective increases for certain commodities and services were indicated Tuesday in Winnipeg as news of rising costs were announced from other Canadian cities.
The situation Tuesday in Winnipeg according to a survey was as follows:
Sugar: a jump to 70 cents per hundredweight Friday at the distributor's level was reflected Tuesday to the consumer at a cent a pound more.
Butter: creamery officials in Winnipeg declared exhausted government supplies of butter as well as a cream price increase were responsible for the retail price of butter Tuesday-57 cents a pound-up 2 cents from last week.
I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will be delighted to hear that. Soft drinks went up to 6 cents a bottle. The prices of haircuts and shoe repairs are going up. Everything is going up and the high prices are responsible for that. The worker wants more money to keep up his standard of living and you get an endless spiral.
Shortly after the Korean war broke out there arose in the press and on the air discussions as to a possible shortage of sugar.
240	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bryce Sugar prices were increased under the pretext that there was a shortage. At the same time, in the press and over the air, President Truman was assuring the people of this continent that there was more sugar in storage in the United States than ever before in the history of the country; and that when this was gone the sugar potential in the United States was greater than at any time in the history of the country. The impression that the propagandists for high prices had tried to create was that the people were buying and hoarding. This is not the case.
In my opinion, in sugar, bread and other commodities we are getting at this time, on the part of those who control, the kind of action that we got from Canada Packers in the matter of butter shortly before the prices committee was set up by this House of Commons. The president of Canada Packers admitted before that committee that his company had made a little bit over ten cents a pound on butter. His only alibi was that it was good business, and the fact that they made half a million extra dollars at the expense of the consumer was good business. I do not recall his exact words, but he said they were in business to buy as cheap as they could and to sell as high as they could. That is the system under which we are living, and it is up to the government to step in and to see that they do not overdo it.
In my opinion, this is what is happening in sugar today, and it is the responsibility of the government to see to it that laws are enacted to protect the consumer against exploitation on the part of those who are greedy for profits and who are taking advantage of the present emergency in order to boost them.
The earnings of the Acadia Atlantic Sugar Refinery show that they are still making a substantial profit; although this year their profit is down from last year, they are still making a substantial profit. Their profits were as follows:
1946		$ 452,593
1947		 424,891
1948		 1,168,351
1949		 883,480
Another glaring example is what happened to the chocolate bar that children like so well. During the last war, under the pretext of a shortage of sugar, the price was boosted to seven cents and the bar was cut drastically. Recently the price was brought back to five cents, to the great delight of the children of this country. It was a great shock to them, as soon as the war talk began again, to find that the bar had gone back to seven cents without any increase in size.
I would urge the government at this session of the house-and I stress it again-to 

re-enact their price control machinery and not only to put on ceilings at the present level but to roll back those ceilings so that any increases that may have taken place since the beginning of the Korean war at least would be eliminated. I urge that action because you have that needless spiral: prices go up, the workman becomes dissatisfied, he loses his standard of living and he asks for more wages, and the thing keeps going on.
I feel strongly on this subject, and that is why I am dealing with it tonight to the exclusion of everything else. I am not thinking of workers and farmers alone, but I have particularly in mind all of those on fixed incomes: the thousands of civil servants, the old age pensioners, those on veterans' pensions, those on war veterans' allowances and the thousands on provincial mothers' allowances, blind pensions and so forth. Every increase in prices means a reduction in their standard of living, and I trust that the program recommended by the committee on social security at the last session will not be sidetracked because of the complications that have arisen in the international field. I hope that the government will go forward with that program and will as soon as possible enact the necessary legislation to relieve our aged people of the objectionable means test.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) suggested, a well-organized economy internally is one of our best guarantees of meeting our international obligations.
In closing, I want to support what the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) said when he spoke of the international commodity clearing house proposal at the meeting of the FAO. We are still destroying our surpluses of food instead of diverting them to feed a hungry world. When this matter comes up for further discussion I hope the government will see its way clear to be more agreeable to such an idea or will let us know something more about it, as it would make a real contribution to world peace.
(Translation):


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, for the few minutes I intend to speak, I am afraid I shall have to repeat some thoughts previously expressed in this debate. I feel that the importance of the matter under review requires me to state briefly to the house some views which I believe are generally held in my constituency.
The last war, in which Canada made a superhuman effort, had left us with a legitimate hope for peace among all the peoples of the world. And so, throughout the country,

Canadians were glad when an association of the free nations of the world, now known as the United Nations Organization, was established.
From the start, Canada has been a member of that organization and a signatory of the charter. As such, we assumed obligations. Among other things, we undertook to support steps providing for collective security against all aggression and to give any assistance required for the preservation of peace.
When Canada thus committed herself in 1945, we were hopeful that our country would never be called upon to carry out that undertaking, that never again would we have to come to the rescue of a democracy attacked by some horde of barbarians.
Unfortunately all the free democratic nations of the world are already asking our help in repelling an aggression conceived, backed and controlled by dictator Stalin.
Naturally all right-minded Canadians must have experienced a feeling of deep sadness when they saw that, so soon after the great war, our country was asked to carry out an undertaking given in an atmosphere of mutual trust and true peace. We had overlooked the inhuman policies of the U.S.S.R. leaders.
Again, the whole world is disturbed by war. Last June, parliament decided to send three destroyers to give assistance to the other naval units of the United Nations already involved in the Korean conflict, as well as a squadron of transport planes.
An emergency special session of parliament has now been called to approve the government's decision to recruit a special volunteer brigade 5,000 strong that will be made available to the United Nations to uphold peace and to resist Soviet aggression.
Although they are disappointed I believe the people of Canada have no alternative but to accept such a decision.
Nevertheless, there are many who regret that the United States, the country which has up to now taken the lead in resisting Soviet aggression, rejected Pandit Nehru's offer of mediation.
There could be some doubt, of course, about the-outcome of such mediation. Nevertheless, in view of the personality of the Indian leader, of the political importance of his great country, we should have given more consideration to this offer of peace from a great Asiatic leader. Unfortunately, it is too late to correct that mistake and we are now duty bound to take part in a war fought thousands of miles from our country, it -is true, but in respect of which Canada has
The Address-Mr. Balcer been called upon to do its share as a party to the United Nations charter. Even though we must train and equip that brigade for an expedition afar, and establish our national defence on a sounder basis, we should not commit ourselves to uncontrolled and exaggerated expenditures that would be prejudicial to the economy of the nation.
Canadians, naturally, want us to fulfil our obligations, but they also wish to see their money spent in a truly fair and reasonable way.
Frankly, the government has very little to show, as far as national defence is concerned, for the billion and a half dollars spent since 1945.
Those appropriations were voted by parliament, it is true, but the house could have decided more advisedly had those enormous expenditures been scrutinized by a committee of the house, as is done in Great Britain, the United States and several other countries. In my opinion, should a committee of the house be appointed, we could easily do without the blatant publicity which always follows the meetings of committees set up by our neighbours to the south.
Besides seeing to it that this money is wisely spent, I believe that the people of Canada must also know whether the government intends to limit itself to its present program or whether more surprises are in store for us.
This afternoon, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) tried to give us some explanation of the part assigned to this country in the present conflict. In spite of his explanation, the situation still appears to me undetermined and rather hazy. Moreover, the United States, since the beginning of the Korean conflict, have, on various occasions shown signs of a fumbling policy, which was lacking in consistency and cohesion. Thus we see differences of opinions between the President of the United States and his commander-in-chief in the Far East. For instance, the army chief of staff is forced to recall one of his own generals, while the Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, has to differ publicly with the Secretary for the Navy.
We have noted that among our neighbours to the south, the nation's policy is not clearly defined, although their soldiers continue to lay down their lives while defending a country that is a member of the United Nations against brutal soviet aggression.
242	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcer
I harbour grave fears that the same situation may again occur here. Of course, I wish to see our alliance with the United States continue, but I urge the government to remain ever cautious with respect to the line of action our southern neighbours would have us follow. It does not follow that, in order to meet our obligations towards the United Nations, we should accept all the decisions of the United States. We must preserve the integrity of our sovereignty for if there is one thing to which the people of my constituency are opposed, it is union with the United States.
The answer to that might be that the matter is not of current interest. However, we must not forget that our policy must be a Canadian policy supported by the whole Canadian people.
A country like ours must live up to its obligations. But I sincerely believe that with the billions of dollars that our country and the United States will be called upon to spend for armaments, our contribution to world peace would be much more effective were a peace offensive by the great Asiatic peoples which we still number among our friends to be launched simultaneously with this military action. I refer to India and Pakistan where Russian propaganda has not yet met with success. I would request the government to inaugurate a lend-lease or assistance program for those two countries. Canada has two great friends there: Pandit Nehru and Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, whom this house had the honour of hearing. I therefore believe that Canada and the United States would make a serious mistake by not taking advantage of the support which those two great democrats can give to world peace.
It is frightening to see the United States and Canada spending billions on materials that will later be used as death-dealing weapons against the peoples of Asia.
If part of those billions that will be sunk into our intervention in Korea were only used to turn hundreds of millions of Hindus into friends filled with gratitude toward their western allies, we would be doing more for peace than by defeating aggression through armed intervention in Korea.
Moreover, because those Asiatic peoples comprise millions of human beings, nothing is to be gained by a policy of aerial bombardments and armoured tank war. The atomic 

bombs dropped by our southern allies on two Japanese cities will, in my opinion, remain as a blemish on their history.
I therefore feel, as a Christian and as a Canadian, that we should spare no efforts to promote peace and at the same time, ask our youth to enlist in order to repel the aggression of these politburo gangsters. In this struggle against the Kremlin's ideology there is no better way to gain public support than to raise the standard of living of the Asiatic democracies. We should indeed show all peoples in the world that our way of life is truly better than the soviet way and that we can extend it to all.
Let us now return to the internal situation in the face of that conflict. In addition to fighting communistic activity in Asia, the government should show the Canadian people its determination to prevent the sabotaging at home of our democracy by communists.
Ordinary common sense should make the government forget the political advantages which it may have derived as a result of its tolerant attitude towards Canadian communists, and bring it to ban their demoralizing, anti-religious and anti-social activities. Otherwise, people may easily question the government's sincerity.
The enormous expenditures resulting from our participation in the conflict will entail increased taxation. I therefore urge the government to tax first of all the large corporations instead of making individuals carry the load of taxation. Owing to the present high cost of living, I doubt very much whether it would be humanly possible for the average Canadian citizen to stand an increase in income tax.
Since the government has done nothing to curb the ever increasing cost of living it has no right to remedy the effects of its inaction by increased taxation alone. I hope it will use other methods.
Let us hope that the government will put before parliament during this session a well balanced program to fight inflation and the increasing cost of living. That is essential. If we do not want to see the recurrence of strikes such as the one which has just paralysed this country, we must tackle the problem seriously.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I once again remind the government that our young men, while taking their place among the troops of the free nations of the world, will not be able to display any distinctive Canadian flag. They will, of course, have the United Nations flag, but in my opinion, this government will never have a better opportunity to grace this country with a truly national flag.
(Text):


Mr. E. W. George (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cannon) and seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did an excellent job, and their constituents can be justly proud1 of their representatives here, and be assured that they are well represented.
Also I wish to extend congratulations at this time to our new Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). I am sure all of us, especially those of us who are veterans, were sorry to see Mr. Gregg leave the Department of Veterans Affairs. Canadian veterans have received better training and treatment than those in any other country of the world. The Hon. Mr. Gregg gave up a position of president of the university of New Brunswick to enter the cabinet of the late W. L. Mackenzie King as minister of fisheries. This vacancy had been caused by the untimely death of the late Hon. H. F. G. Bridges. Shortly thereafter Mr. Gregg became minister of veterans affairs. The Hon. Mr. Gregg is a New Brunswicker, and proud of it. He is as proud of that fact as we are. In fact, New Brunswick is almost an obsession with him.
The sudden and untimely death of the late labour leader, the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, left the position of minister of labour vacant. The threat ^ of the railway strike made it imperative that a new minister be appointed immediately. To fill this important position under such serious circumstances the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) picked a New Brunswicker-a New Brunswick soldier, scholar and statesman, the Hon. Milton F. Gregg, V.C. No greater tribute could be paid to any man. His interest in the welfare of the veterans, together with his great humanitarian interests, will I am sure make him a great Minister of Labour. The name of Gregg will be added to the list of maritimers who have helped make Canada great.
I also wish to extend congratulations to the Hon. Hugues Lapointe, the new Minister of
The Address-Mr. George Veterans Affairs. I first knew "Bob" Lapointe when our regiment was stationed at Sussex, New Brunswick, and our paths have crossed many times since. "Doug" How of the Canadian Press, writing in the September issue of The Legionary, has this to say:
Out of the veterans department went quiet, human, kind and able Milton F. Gregg, V.C.; into his big boots, quite aware of how big they were, stepped "Bob" Lapointe, young, amiable, smart, veteran in politics, veteran of war and, like both his predecessors, an army man by military background.
We all wish the new minister every success in his new appointment, and I am sure he will leave a reputation in this House of Commons and in the government equal to that of his late father.
I intend to speak briefly only of defence matters, leaving the other aspects of the world crisis to those more qualified than I am. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on Friday last in this house gave a very able address reviewing the historic events leading up to the invasion of South Korea, and the resultant action taken by the United Nations. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) gave in great detail the steps which have been taken by his department and the government to carry out our obligations under the United Nations agreement.
The hon, member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) in his speech on Friday last severely criticized the reserve army for lack of manpower. The majority of regiments going into camp this year took more men than ever before in their history.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nonsense, and you know it.


Edmund William George: Actually 23.5 per cent more attended camp this year than a year ago. On the other hand the number of personnel attending camp is not necessarily an indication of the active strength of the reserve units. In the case of my own regiment, the 8th P.L.(N.B.) Hussars, we took more men than ever before into camp. Indeed, we had the largest unit in Canada attending camp. Had the camp dates been different we would have been able to take many more. This I am sure applies to all reserve units. Dates for camp are allotted by the general staff after consideration of all the factors involved. Some units must go to camp first, and some units must go to camp last. I do not think it is fair for the hon. member for Nanaimo to make a general criticism of the reserve army by quoting the percentages of a few units. The strength of the reserve army is the greatest in the history of Canada. Its training is progressive and sufficient instructors, equipment and facilities are available for
244	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne the training of tradesmen and for collective training. I was talking the other day to one of the area commanders about the reserve army-he was not from New Brunswick-and he told me that he was amazed at the number and calibre of those enlisting in the reserve units. The reserve army is getting the best of our young men, and I am sure that this is true right across Canada.
There are those who advocate compulsory reserve army training, but compulsory military service is not part of Canada's program. Recent figures of enlistments in the special force and the active force show that there is no need for it, at any rate at the present time. I would suggest to some members of the opposition that instead of advising young men against enlisting they should assist the recruiting of personnel for all services in every way.
All reserve units are working and training toward the day when they may be mobilized to take an active part in the defence of this country. Too many people believe that the reserve army is nothing more or less than a social club. In our own unit, when it is indicated clearly that an individual cannot or will not attend training, prompt action is taken to collect his kit and strike him off strength, and this applies equally to officers, W.O.'s, N.C.O.'s and men.
We feel that present conditions require a definite change in attitude toward administration and training on the part of all ranks, and this would include the C.O. and the last joined trooper. We must all walk a little faster and accomplish more than has been the case in the peacetime soldiering of the past. The N.P.A.M., which was the reserve army between wars, gave a good account of itself during world war II. Today's reserve army is better prepared than its earlier counterpart to render a like service.
In conclusion I should like to add that in the struggle today between two ways of life arms alone are not enough. There is a need for us to help in an economic way the peoples who are now wondering which way to turn. We may have time for this before they need military aid or it may be necessary for us to help them economically at the same time as we help them to strengthen their defences. Even this is not enough. In order to offset the propaganda which is emanating from the Kremlin it is necessary that we inform the undecided peoples of our objective in this world struggle,' not so much a resistance of communism as a championing of the cause of economic and political freedom.


Mr. W. J. Browne (Sf. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, although the speech from the throne at the opening of this session departs from


the usual practice of dealing with many subjects I feel I am justified in following the time-honoured custom of congratulating the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like especially to congratulate the mover upon his wonderful facility of speech in both languages as well as upon the contents of his speech.
On Saturday afternoon the Independent hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) when discussing the vital questions before us advocated a purely defensive policy on the part of Canada and opposed the sending of any assistance to resist aggression in southern Korea. At the time the hon. member was speaking there were probably hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario and Quebec listening to the broadcasts of two battles that were taking place, one at Lansdowne Park in Ottawa and one at the Stadium in Montreal. One can imagine the consternation or pleasure that was shown by the supporters of the Alouettes or the Rough Riders or the Argos as fortune favoured one side or the other.
But at the same time in the southeast corner of far off Korea there were battle-stained and weary and outnumbered United Nations troops, southern Koreans and members of the United States forces on the ten-yard line struggling their best to hold it against the ferocious North Koreans who were backed by the might of Soviet Russia. It seemed to me that if there could have been a broadcast of what was taking place in South Korea on Saturday afternoon there would have been greater urgency on the part of all hon. members, and especially on the part of members of the government, to send help to that beleaguered little country.
During the past week we have had interesting speeches by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). While I did not have the pleasure of hearing the Prime Minister's speech I did follow with close interest the remarks of the other two ministers. I always have great pleasure in following the graceful speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs but I think on the last occasion the Minister of National Defence almost outdid him.
Yet I think if we could have listened to a couple of South Koreans, through an interpreter of course, or to a couple of United States G.I.'s, giving us in their blunt language an account of what was happening in their area when the North Koreans punched a hole eight miles deep on the western flank of that 120-mile front, there would not have been much difficulty about getting help to South

Korea. The Secretary of State for External Affairs seems to be surprised that there should be any demand from this side of the house that help should have been sent to that country.
Canada today is a great nation. At other sessions of this parliament we have been often told about how great she was. That seems to have been soft-pedalled at the present time. We are not now being told about how prosperous she is, about how great her trade is, about the soundness of her financial policies. Yet, because of her great wealth, because of her prosperity, because of the excellent manner in which she conducted her financial, military and naval affairs during the past war, and particularly the exploits of her air force, Canada acquired a reputation and prestige in the world far beyond what she would have been entitled to on the basis of her population alone. Because of that and because she is a permanent member of the United Nations, because she faces the Pacific as well as the Atlantic, Canada has an interest in what is going on in eastern Asia second only to that of the United States.
During the past week there was distributed a white paper dealing with Canada and the Korean crisis and which gives the details of the appeal contained in the telegram sent by the Secretary General of the United Nations to the acting Canadian permanent delegate to the United Nations under date of July 14. This reads:
In this connection I have been advised that there is an urgent need for additional effective assistance. I should be grateful, therefore, if your government would examine its capacity to provide an increased volume of combat forces, particularly ground forces.
On July 19 the Prime Minister made a statement in which he said:
Having in mind the other obligations for the employment of Canadian ground forces, the cabinet has reached the conclusion that the dispatch, at this stage, of existing first line elements of the Canadian army to the Korean theatre would not be warranted.
The acting permanent delegate wrote on July 21:
With respect to ground forces, for the reasons indicated in a statement issued by the Prime Minister on 19 July (of which I am enclosing a copy) the Canadian government is unable, at this stage, to dispatch existing first line elements of the Canadian army to the Korean theatre.
We appreciate a reasonable explanation, Mr. Speaker, of why the Canadian government is not sending ground forces to help in Korea, but this afternoon, when we were listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he commented on a remark made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) on Saturday, and said that there was no appeal from General MacArthur. I think I
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne am quoting him correctly when I say that he said an appeal had not come from General MacArthur. In today's Ottawa Citizen there is an account from Lake Success of a third appeal from General MacArthur. It reads:
General Douglas MacArthur pleaded Saturday for a quick build-up of United Nations ground forces in Korea. He said in a report to the United Nations that naval and air power have grown in strength and effectiveness but added: "My gravest concern is for a prompt build-up of the now outnumbered ground forces of this command. ... I still feel it my duty to report to you that contributions must be forthcoming without delay if this threat to international security is to be resolved promptly."
This report is his third. Is it not tragic that when this repeated call came Canada was unprepared to give any assistance? The criticism directed at the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and other members of the government is not so much that they did not wish to send troops as that they were not in a position to send troops at all because they did not have them to send. My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins), has pointed out that if Norway were attacked Canada would have no troops to send there under the Atlantic charter, or if Newfoundland had been attacked Canada would have had no troops to send there. It is because they have neglected their duty that people are criticizing them today.
In this house I have the honour to represent a riding composed of the three provincial districts of Ferryland, Placentia-St. Mary's and St. John's West. In the referenda which were held to decide the question of confederation those three districts gave the largest majority against union with Canada. Nevertheless, when I was home this summer, I consulted many of the residents of this riding and asked them two questions. I said, "What do you think of the war?" and "Do you think that Canada is doing all it should?" The answers I received were invariably these: "We think the war is very serious and we do not think Canada is doing enough". When these people told me that, I believe their views represented what the people in other parts of Canada are saying and thinking today. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has, I believe, a large and talented staff under his command. He has control of diplomats, ministers and charges d'affaires in about forty foreign countries. In addition to these, he also has representatives under his direction at the United Nations. Canada even had a Canadian representative on the United Nations commission on Korea who was responsible indirectly at least to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. From these people he could get the latest information about what was transpiring

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne in the world. Although the Secretary of State for External Affairs shakes his head in negative fashion, I think he ought to be the best informed man in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shook my head to indicate we have not a representative on the Korean commission and have not had for two years.


William Joseph Browne: I think, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs ought to be the best informed man in this house on international affairs.


Some hon. Members:: He is.


William Joseph Browne: I am glad to know that he is.


An hon. Member:: You will find out.


William Joseph Browne: From his ambassadors he should know a good deal about what is going on in Moscow, and what is going on in Colombo, Capetown or Washington. When the house is in session he should indicate to it what he finds out that is important.


An hon. Member:: Why?


William Joseph Browne: In January and February of this year a debate took place in Washington on this very question of aid to the Far East and Korea. I do not know whether the minister has seen the report of that debate, but certainly when he returned from his trip to the Far East and spoke in the house on February 22, although he devoted two or three pages of his account to his meeting with General MacArthur, he made no reference to this very important debate that had taken place in the house of representatives at Washington. I should like to quote from a summary of the congressional proceedings of the United States for January to April inclusive, 1950. I may say that a bill was introduced to give aid to southern Korea and when it was first introduced it was defeated by one vote. It was introduced again at the instance of Senator Connally and was passed by a large majority. I want to draw the attention of the house to what was said during that debate by two Republican representatives, although the measure was Democratic in origin. At page 57 I find the following:
Hon. William Lemke, Republican, said ... as a member of a visiting subcommittee he had been in Hong Kong and Korea. At Tokyo they had been informed by General MacArthur's staff of the danger of world war III and there was no use camouflaging the danger. The member felt that "we owe some obligation to the Korean people that we put in the position they are in, and also to realize that our war is in Asia, not in Europe." They had been shown in General MacArthur's headquarters that the division of Korea was very unfortunate and dangerous to America. "We were informed in no uncertain terms that Russia was supplying arms and training North Korea, and we

were . . . doing the same for South Korea. That is the situation that exists there today." The South Koreans could take care of themselves unless Russia stepped in. When she did, then world war III was on, and they need not camouflage it.
The remarks of the Hon. Charles A. Eaton are summarized as follows:
U.S. policy in the Orient had been a most disastrous one in recent years, in his opinion; and he looked on this little group in the peninsula of Korea as the last toehold the U.S. had on the Asiatic continent at the present moment. The Koreans were worthy people; they had a great history. The shadow of Russia hung over them all the time. Because America was now face to face with a world challenge, which sooner or later would have to be decided by a terrific sacrifice of men and treasure, the member did not want to see South Korea at this moment withdraw from the one spot in all of dark Asia where people were struggling to be free and had a right to expect American assistance.
I notice that sitting with the Secretary of State for External Affairs is the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), who accompanied him on his trip to Colombo, and I believe visited Tokyo with him on his return journey. I believe the two ministers were in Tokyo after that debate had taken place. They were in a position to be fully informed about what was going on in Korea, but when the minister spoke to the house he gave us no information and at no time indicated how serious the situation was there.
In view of the importance of that debate that took place in the house of representatives, I cannot understand why the government refused the reasonable request that was made by the men of military experience on this side of the house when they requested that a committee be set up to examine into the defence estimates. These estimates were presented in large blocks, and it was impossible for any member to analyse them. Why was it that the government would not agree to setting up that committee for an examination of those expenditures to see if the country was getting value for the hundreds of millions of dollars that were expended? Last spring we voted about $400 million, and made commitments for another $200 million over the next two years. It seems to me that the government had a good reason for refusing a committee. They did not want to have witnesses brought here to show how the defence department was frittering away the people's money.
If the statement made here by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) is correct, and it has not been denied, that Canada was not in a position to send any more than one battalion, then I say the minister should hang his head in shame and the government deserves the most severe condemnation by the people of this country. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. SEPTEMBER 4, 1950
Pearson) made some reference to the part that he thought Germany should play in a joint defence of western Europe. I was glad to hear the minister make those remarks. I made similar remarks about a year ago, although I do not profess to have any special knowledge of international affairs. Is it not common sense? Ten or twelve years ago Germany was one of the greatest military powers, and today in western Germany there are millions of trained soldiers. We are permitting them to watch the events that are taking place, but we have not done anything up to the present time to get them to assist us in defending western culture against the barbaric menace that threatens us through Soviet Russia. In the United Nations meetings at Lake Success and elsewhere insulting words are hurled across the table by the Russians and to the Russians. Although we realize how powerful Russia has become since 1945, we have not taken the measures we should have taken to arm the people of western Germany, and to make them valiant allies in our defence. It is good news that the present chancellor of Germany does not wish to have Germany armed as an independent power, but rather wishes her to be associated with the other western European countries in the defence of western Europe and what we hold dear. It is a good thing that General Charles de Gaulle, that brilliant tank expert of world war II, has said that the future of the world depends to a large extent on the association of Germany and France.
The world owes a debt of gratitude, Mr. Speaker, to the United States; not only for the tremendous amount of money that country has forwarded to Europe for its rehabilitation, but for the military protection it has given to enable us to continue our march of prosperity and extend our social security. Everyone seems to leave everything to Uncle Sam. It hardly seems fair. We are not playing our full part as an ally when we leave it all up to the United States. .


Mr. Wylie:: We have not done badly ourselves.


William Joseph Browne: It was not
wise for Canada to allow her defences to fall into disrepair or to be dissipated on the auction block.
There is another subject, Mr. Speaker, to which the member for Calgary East referred, and that is the question of Spain. I have referred to Spain before. The people of Newfoundland, as well as the people in other parts of Canada, are wondering why it is that the Canadian government is so particular about its dealings with Spain. Why are the
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne governments of other countries so fussy about exchanging diplomatic representation with Spain when they do so with Yugoslavia? According to reports, conditions in Yugoslavia are not much superior to those which we believe exist in Soviet Russia. General Franco, known as the dictator of Spain, shares with Chiang Kai-shek the honour of being Russia's number one enemy. Russia has never forgiven Chiang Kai-shek for preventing China from falling into the hands of the communists many years ago. When I hear people criticizing Chiang Kai-shek and talking of throwing him to the wolves, I think they are forgetting the good government he gave China for many years. We have not been subjected to the same infiltration of communism that China experienced. Some hon. members here must remember that while Chiang Kai-shek was in power in China the missionaries from this and other countries could carry on their work of spreading Christianity without any fear of interference from the government. Conditions are far different today; yet some people are anxious to see the government that is in power in China today receive recognition while Chiang Kai-shek, who fought so stubbornly against the Japanese and who was our ally for so many years, should now be discarded. It is a strange commentary upon the loyalty of men that first of all Poland and then Chiang Kai-shek-I suppose there are others-should be discarded in this fashion.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was speaking this afternoon he suddenly reminded us we should not put too much confidence in armed forces. He said it in such a solemn tone of voice that, for a moment, I thought he was going to refer to the spiritual forces upon which we should rely. Instead of that he surprised a good many when he said that we have our scientists to depend upon. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is not inappropriate in this house, which begins its session with daily prayer, that we should feel we are all in God's hands at this moment. Nobody knows what is going to take place in the world. We are entirely dependent upon Almighty God. We ought to look to Him, trust in Him, and ask Him to help us to do what is right in this tragic situation.
In the Roman Catholic church this is a holy year. Millions of people have gone to Rome from various parts of the world to see and hear the Holy Father, who has been ceaselessly pleading for a proper peace with justice. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we in this house, and in this country, would have greater success if we put more of our dependence upon a spiritual appeal to Almighty God than

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne we do in reliance upon material things. Too great reliance upon material things has lulled our people into apathy and ignorance. They are told that all is well and they concentrate on getting richer and forget more vital needs.
What is the situation in the world today? We are confronted with a soviet government which is militaristic in its attitude, imperialistic in its policy, materialistic in its way of life and its philosophy, and atheistic in its religion. It is entirely opposed to everything that Christian people hold dear; and although we do not carry out fully the Christian gospel, fundamentally the people in the western countries of Europe and of America are Christian in their outlook.
There is no doubt of the aims of Soviet Russia. They are published in every book written by Russians. There is no doubt of the means Russia is willing to employ to achieve those aims. Their aim is world domination of the lives and souls of men, nothing less. The government of Russia today is as cruel and as ruthless as the government of nazi Germany ever was. It wishes, like a great spider, to have all the nations of the world enmeshed in the web it has been weaving for us; and Stalin sits like a great spider in the centre of that web and watches the nations of the world carrying on in a gay, frivolous or careless manner, neglectful of their vital needs.
In all the lands of the world the agents of Stalin are penetrating into the most secret places. They have been sitting in this chamber. They have penetrated into the greatest governments of the world and have secured secrets which have been sent from Washington to Moscow to be used for our overthrow and our enslavement.
During the past week, Mr. Speaker, the world witnessed two anniversaries, but I have heard no reference in this house to those two important events. On September 1 we witnessed the eleventh anniversary of the invasion of Poland by Germany; and on September 2 we witnessed the anniversary of the surrender of Japan to the United States in 1945. In those six years that passed between 1939 and 1945 surely the world had its full measure of blood, sweat and tears. Poland, which was invaded then, our gallant ally, is an enemy now. Does anyone ever stop to inquire how it came about that Poland is now regarded as an enemy, when we know that 90 per cent of the people of that country are not inimical to western civilization? Or why Japan, which was a defeated enemy in 1945, should today be regarded as a potential ally? In that country, as in Germany, there are 80 millions of people and several


millions of trained, able and skilful soldiers who could be used, if the need arose, to resist Soviet aggression.
At the same time the might of the Soviet union has grown. Did Russia neglect her defences as Canada did? Did she disperse her armies? Not according to the most reliable information we can get or according to the movies in which we sometimes see Stalin reviewing the troops in the Red square in Moscow, and see tanks in their thousands; armoured cars and guns; and young, tough, well-armed troops in their hundreds of thousands. Where are Canada's guns, her armoured cars, her tanks and her troops? Since I came to Canada a year ago I have not seen a tank or an armoured car; and the only parade of troops that I have seen has been at the piling of the drums or at the opening of parliament out here on parliament hill.
All these are extremely serious matters, and I would ask hon. members not to be frivolous about them. They will have a different attitude in a short time. I do not know what is going to happen, and they do not know any more than I do. What I am pointing out are facts. When we hear from the masters of schooners and the captain of the steamer that crosses the straits between North Sydney and Port aux Basques that submarines are around our coast; when the captain says that one was within fifty yards away from the S.S. Cabot Strait as he went across; when we see reports in the papers that submarines are reported off Australia and off Japan; and when we are informed on the highest authority that those are Russian submarines, it is time for us to take the smile off our faces and look at things realistically.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question that the President of the United States asked: What is the state of this nation? What is the state of Canada at the present time? The empty skies, the silent seas give us our answer. It is regrettable that Canada has neglected her defences. But it is some consolation to know that at last the government is listening and has wakened up to the real state of affairs. Let us hope it has been in time.
(Translation):


Mr. Henri Courlemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks that will follow I intend to express personal opinions which are familiar to the electors of the constituency I represent. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speech from the throne and the statement of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) on the amounts we

shall be asked to vote as war appropriations. This is not the first time an increase in appropriations tor military purposes has been mentioned. I doubt very much, however, that these colossal amounts are devoted only to the defence of our country. A past, too recent to be forgotten, leads us to doubt it. I can recall the years 1937-1938 when, as September 1939 drew closer, appropriations for so-called national defence were increasing. We have paid dearly to learn that these appropriations served to draw us into a war in which Canada had never been attacked.
In 1939, Canada threw herself into the war two years before the United States. We gained nothing. We have good reason to be worried. A storm, perhaps unprecedented, is gathering on the international horizon. Wars on the foreign front have been prepared with so-called defence armaments.
Great Britain and the United States have war departments, while in Canada, perhaps through euphemism or in order to hide the true purpose of that department, we call it Department of National Defence. It might be that we want to give the impression that Canada does not intend to attack any other nation. Yet we have, on two occasions, fought wars waged several thousand miles from our shores, although no one had attacked us. Where will those so-called national defence budgets take us now?
Following the cataclysm of 1914-18, I heard representatives of this country thunder against those who had dragged us into that mess. It was considered as a sort of crime. We even fostered an attitude of non-belligerency, especially in the province of Quebec. Those who had decried the scourge of war did worse.
I well remember the speech made in this house on May 24, 1938 by Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King. I quote from page 3178 of Hansard:
We know and the world knows that we have neither the power nor the will to attack any other land for our own ends. Nor are we inclined to organize or join in crusades in other continents . . . We have neither the power nor the knowledge to settle the destinies of countries thousands of miles away. We are no more likely of our own motion to intervene in Europe than Sweden or Bulgaria or Switzerland is to intervene in America.
Let us now see what the Hon. Ernest Lapointe, former minister of justice and father of the present Minister of Veterans Affairs, had to say at Quebec on December 13, 1938. I quote:
Instead of waging war in foreign lands, we shall stay here and defend our beloved Canada.
Speaking at St. Henri, Mr. P. J. A. Cardin, former minister of public works, went even
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche farther, as reported by Le Canada of January 17, 1938. I quote:
This is the tenth time I am asserting it, Canada will not participate in any external war. This is the tenth time the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King has repeated it before the Canadian parliament. He said it first of all in Geneva before the whole world and Britain's representatives, when he stated that Canada would have no part in any war outside her own territory. What else do you expect? Could you think of anything better . . . You have the statements of cabinet ministers and the prime minister himself ... the military appropriations of the government are earmarked simply and solely for the defence of Canada ... I am personally committed against extra-territorial participation . . .
And Mr. Cardin added in conclusion:
I am 100 per cent for the defence of my country.
I would be 150 per cent for it if that was at all possible: but when other nations are at war, don't count on me.
Those are unequivocal statements, but we have been thrown just the same into foreign wars. We have thousands of dead to bear testimony.
As regards the matter with which we are dealing, what position should we take with respect to Korea? Along with Dr. Gordon Rothney, professor of history at Sir George Williams College, who expressed this opinion at a lecture delivered on July 13, 1950, before the Montreal West Rotary Club, I answer:
Canada is the country that would suffer the most from a third world war. We must adopt an essentially Canadian policy and we must not intervene in Korea.
If the United States, for considerations that I need not discuss, have chosen to rush headlong into an affair the nature of which they know nothing about, Canada should not follow them. At the risk of being called a communist or a fellow traveller, I will add that we must not send expeditionary forces outside the country, since past experience has shown that they lead directly to conscription. Mobilization for service abroad inevitably leads to conscription as soon as the need for it is felt. We must avoid becoming involved1 in conflicts that arise between great powers and restrict our part to that of mediator.
In the light of the facts and in view of the statements made by Liberal leaders during the last thirty years, I cannot approve the stand taken, by the government in the Korean war. Bureaucrats are already rejoicing over the United States intervention in Korea in the hope that it will be followed by a third world war and that their power will be restored. Our intervention means the ration system and controls of all kinds in the near future. Our economy will again be disrupted
150	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche and there is cause to wonder whether this time Canada will recover from all those unpropitious ventures.
Liberal propagandists are already hard at work; they even go so far as to quote certain excerpts from "O Canada", which this government refuses to recognize as our national anthem, such as: "You were born from a proud race" in order to draw all the more easily an assent which the right thinking majority of this country does not and never will want to give.
Yes, we were born from proud races and we shall never forget that we have been betrayed. Sons of proud races, we shall remember that some of our purest and noblest blood flowed uselessly on foreign soil during two wars which were to have put an end to other wars, including this one.
Aware that I am voicing the will of the majority of my people, I believe it is my duty to rise against Canada's participation in this war where co-nationals are destroying one another. Let us not hurl our country into another disaster.
My stand should astonish no one. I represent my electors in this house and they will never approve a position which apparently must lead my country, our country, to final disaster.
How can we logically explain the about-face of the newspaper Le Canada since July 5, 1950? Yet that newspaper is known to represent truest Liberal opinion in the province of Quebec. I quote an editorial from the July 5, 1950, issue entitled, "North Korea wanted friendly unification":
It Is interesting to note that ten days before launching its surprise attack. North Korea had invited Seoul authorities and members of the UNO commission in Korea for the purpose of a peaceful unification of the country.
Nothing was done, however. After dealing with strongly sovietized North Korea, the newspaper says of South Korea:
-where the former nationalist leader Syngman Rhee, with United States backing, had established a dictatorial regime that has grown increasingly unpopular. Washington had even warned president Syngman Rhee that credits to South Korea would be suspended if he did not act in a more democratic manner, and did not straighten the country's finances.
On July 7, 1950, the same newspaper denounces the political elements who in this country-
-promptly take advantage of such events to ask that the nation be put on a useless and ruinous war footing.
On July 11, 1950, an editorial warned against what might lead to another war.
IMr. Courtemanche.]

On July 13, 1950, a radical change occurs. Under the title: "Our destroyers will serve the cause of peace," an editorial states:
By intervening today in Korea, the Canadian navy is helping to save Canada from a war of aggression in the future.
On July 25, 1950, another editorial praises Canadian and United States intervention in Korea. Later on, the policy remains the same. Those who do not support the government's intervention in Korea are communists or fellow-travellers.
All those statements convince me more than ever that we should not take part in that conflict, for the following reasons:
After taking part in two world wars, Canada cannot afford to participate in a third. The first two already cost Canada too much in both men and money. The war of 1914-18 cost us $1,225 million and that of 1939-1945, $15,130 million. Between 1939 and 1945 one million Canadians were called to arms. Is that not too much for us?
People will say that we must heed the threat of communism. Let us start by fighting it in Canada, for we are not doing so. Why should we intervene in Korea when we refrained from doing so elsewhere? It is not the first Soviet conquest. When Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Roumanians, Chinese and others were victims of Russian terror and communist oppression, we stood idly by. Why should Korea be considered more important than other countries?
In Canada, we are still refusing to ban communism. Moscow's emissaries are permitted to travel at will, their propaganda is broadcast by His Majesty's radio stations and, if necessary, during electoral campaigns, the Liberals do not shy at communist support. One has only to remember the Grey North byelection! Shall we, all in the same breath, spend enormous sums of money and shed the blood of our Canadians to fight communism abroad, when we have not the gumption to destroy it at home? That does not make sense.
Nothing in the history of the Korean conflict justifies our intervention.
Indeed, after following in the wake of London in the past, we are now tied to Washington's apron strings. We want to play the part of a great nation, of a great power; we do not have the means to do it, nor any interest at stake.
Are the lessons of the past so soon forgotten? Did not the great powers show

The Address-Mr. Adamson
towards us a most revolting ingratitude? For once, let us think of ourselves.
Even if the French Canadian members of the Liberal party are silent and thus favour intervention, my words express the general opinion of the French Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! oh!


Henri Courtemanche: He laughs best who laughs last.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Henri Courtemanche: That need not surprise anyone; we are Canadians first and foremost, and our desire for peace was fostered in us especially by the Liberals who have always told us that it was best to vote for them in order to avoid conscription and participation in foreign wars. The Liberals, who ceaselessly raised the spectre of conscription in the province of Quebec, were quick to adopt it later when they seemed to derive pleasure from forcing us to take part in foreign conflicts.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to read an article which Pamfll Saicaru, former representative in the Roumanian parliament, has written in his book "Nothing but Ashes":
In the foreseeable future, open warfare between Russia and the United States appears as unthinkable as a fight between an elephant and a whale.
We have since learned that Soviet Russia does not live up to her commitments. That belated discovery is in no way a credit to the political acumen of Europe and the United States. It only serves to stress the shallow and irresponsible way in which have been tackled the problems raised by the war and the historical prospects of the expansion of Russian imperialism in its new form.
Should Canada pay for that lack of foresight? Let us stay out of this conflict. Let us have enough courage to fight communism at home, to begin with. We are told that this nation is too young to have its own flag. We must then be also too young to take part in this struggle, which may well develop into the bloodiest that the world has ever witnessed.


Mr. Fulford:: Would the hon. member who has just resumed his seat permit a question? Do his remarks represent the official policy of the Progressive Conservative party in the beautiful province of Quebec?
(Text):


Mr. Casselman:: You had better sit down.


Mr. Chevrier:: You do not like his speech, do you?


Arza Clair Casselman: Just as well as you do.
(Translation):


Henri Courtemanche: If the hon. member had listened to the beginning of my remarks, he would have understood what I have said. This is exactly what I said:	In the
remarks that will follow, I intend to express my personal opinions which are familiar to the electors of the constituency I represent.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: I hope your vote will also be personal.
(Text) :


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I cannot agree with the statements which have just been made, no matter how sincerely the hon. member has felt them.
In rising to take part in the debate on the Korean situation, I do so at probably the darkest point in the whole history of the campaign. The late news has just announced that the communists have made a further penetration of some sixteen and a half miles on one front and twelve miles on another. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a more ominous note in the tone of the dispatches. During the war we were conditioned by certain phrases used in broadcasts to denote coming reverses. I may say that the ominous note in the broadcasts and dispatches we have recently had from the United Nations, and over the air from Korea, seems to me to be preparing us for a possible evacuation. I hope events of the next few days will prove that I am wrong; but that is the inescapable situation which faces us this night.
Between the end of the last session and the beginning of this one a very able empire statesman in the person of the Prime Minister of Australia visited Ottawa. He made a speech, which I very much regret he could not make to the House of Commons in session, in which he laid down three cardinal points for any democratic government at the present time. They were, first, to be prepared to fight for our freedom; second, to continue to expand our economy and improve our society; and, third, to prevent inflation from destroying us. This program entails hard work, greater production and the placing of national duty before individual rights and pleasures. It is not the sort of platform for a political party to go to the country on, but unless we endorse it we shall not have

The Address-Mr. Adamson political parties in Canada or the right to express political opinions. Political life today is not a popularity contest.
We talk a lot about our preparations for war and in the next day or two no doubt we shall be talking about our increased expenditures and the consequent tax burden which will have to be imposed. Let us compare our efforts in the past with the efforts of the other nations of what I shall call the Atlantic community. The figures which I shall give come from the Bank for International Settlements and express the percentage of national income spent on defence before Korea. The figures are as follows:
Per Cent
United Kingdom	7-4
Netherlands	61
United States	5-9
Turkey	5-8
France	50
Italy	3-8
Sweden	3-6
Canada	30
Switzerland	2-7
Belgium	2-5
Canada is quite low on the list, being almost in last place. After Korea, the United States and United Kingdom spending on defence will approximate ten per cent of their national income. Were we to contemplate the expenditure on defence of ten per cent of our national income it would mean an expenditure of between $1,000 million and $1,500 million per year. Those are sobering figures, yet they are what the nationals of our partners in the preservation of freedom are spending. Before we speak too boastfully of our efforts let us remember what our partners are doing.
I should like to quote three paragraphs of an article which appeared in the London Economist of recent date, I think of August 1, as follows:
For all practical purposes it is true to say that the British defence effort, which ever since the end of the war has been the highest, relative to the national resources, of any of the free nations, will stand comparison as measured by expenditure, even with the newly proposed scale of American preparations.
Where the principle of equal sacrifice requires much greater efforts is among those members of the Atlantic community other than the United States and the United Kingdom.
That everybody deplores the tragic need for heavier spending on armaments ought to go entirely without saying. But if any of the free nations are tempted to argue that they cannot afford to spend more, they might be reminded that the Soviet union, a much poorer country per head, manages according to Mr. Shinwell to spend at least 13 (and I have heard the figure put at 17 by other well informed people) per cent of its national income on armaments. If there is anything the free nations cannot afford, it is that their response shall fall dangerously short of the challenge.

At the turn of the century, when referring to Canada, Kipling had this to say in his poem entitled, "Our Lady of the Snows":
Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own.
The word "mistress" has two meanings. One is as Kipling used it and the other is to describe a kept woman. Unless we are prepared to play our part equally with the other nations of the Atlantic community the other appellation for mistress may apply to our country. A kept woman is a role which does not fit the heroic and adventurous character of the Canadian people.
The bad publicity we have received both here and in New York has been due to many factors. There is an article which appeared in a recent issue of Maclean's magazine by Blair Fraser, who cannot be considered to be anything but friendly to the present administration. Speaking of the United States reaction to our behaviour since the outbreak of the Korean war, he says:
Mike Pearson, in a speech the night of Trygve Lie's appeal, said Canada's contribution of three destroyers was "no mere token". He meant it too. If one of those destroyers should be sunk Canadian loss of life would be more than all Americans killed in the first month of hostilities. However, the remark got a sour response in Washington. One state department man said, "O.K., let's call it three tokens." The wisecrack was picked up immediately and might be called the unofficial United States reaction to the Pearson statement.
The public relations of the Canadian army have been extraordinarily inept. At the time of the Korean crisis they publicized an exercise of one officer and ten other ranks testing gear in the Arctic. They dubbed the exercise "Exercise Shoofly". The press release said that army officers felt that the exercise had been aptly named. Things of this sort are first of all bad national defence. Second, they are extraordinarily bad publicity at a time when the free world must stick together. It has been said, "What is the good of sending our ground forces to Korea?" I wonder whether General Mac-Arthur would have welcomed even one battalion of Canadian troops even if he had to supply them through United States supply lines.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs made an extraordinary statement. He said that no action could have been taken by the United Nations if it had not been for the fortuitous absence of the Soviet delegate from the security council when the decision was made. Does that mean that if the Soviet delegate had been present at the meeting and had vetoed the United Nations action we and the rest of the free

world would have had to sit idly by, take no action, and let the North Korean communists invade South Korea? If it does I suggest that an immediate revision of the responsibilities of the Atlantic pact nations be undertaken to overcome that difficulty.
Much has been said about our actions in the meetings of the United Nations. We are the most democratic people in the world when it comes to talking. We can talk a better Utopia than almost any other of the United Nations. But when it comes to action, as the old song goes, we simply fade away. I refer to the sort of things that have gone on in the United Nations, the sort of things thcjt the press and radio of Canada have said were wonderful things that we did. For instance, there was the genocide resolution. If there is a third world war, of what use is a pious genocide resolution when fully a third of the world's population is likely to be destroyed?
There was another instance when Mr. Ilsley.went down to the United Nations, and in a wrangle came out with the phrase that Canada was a peacemonger. The press and the radio played it up as if it were the second coming of the Messiah and said what a wonderful thing this suggestion of peace-mongering was. Such talk, Mr. Speaker, is not realistic, and does more to destroy the effectiveness of the United Nations than anything I can think of. When the actual slaughter begins we are fine. In fact Canada's slaughtering powers are as good as or better than anybody else's. If the civilian population could know what nice quiet Canadian boys can do when roused they would be surprised. Probably it is as well that they do not know.
Where we fall down is between the last part of the talking period and the beginning of the slaughtering period. This is unfortunately a political legacy which is now costing us dearly in prestige, and may result in loss of life unnecessarily as did the shocking reinforcement policy of the last war. As an example, there is our withdrawal from the duty imposed on the United States, Great Britain and France of providing at least in small measure a part of the occupying forces in Germany. This was symptomatic of the policy followed by the Liberal administration for the last quarter of a century which can be summed up in two words, no commitments. If we had undertaken a part of that job we would now have trained men and officers who would know the conditions, topography and the possible places where war in Europe might take place.
The Address-Mr. Adamson
We would also have a fund of military intelligence which is only possible through an occupying force. We are, Mr. Speaker, politically frightened at preparedness. Korea is our last chance to prevent a third world war. If we, the free people, are driven out of Korea a third world war will follow whenever and wherever Russia chooses. Korea is relatively as important, and represents about the same stage, as the occupation of the Rhineland and the breaking of the Locarno pact by Hitler. Had we stopped Hitler at that time it might have been possible-it probably would have been possible [DOT]-to prevent a second world war. Once we allowed the forces of nazism to get away with a flagrant breach of that treaty, they could get away with anything. So it is, Mr. Speaker, in Korea. If we allow the Russians-and it is the Russians because communism knows no national boundaries-to get away with the occupation of Korea the third world war is upon us. Korea is our last chance.
I do not want to go into it in detail, but I wish hon. members would read General Mac-Arthur's report to the United Nations published in yesterday's New York Times. In three places he implores them to send ground troops. He says that the American forces are outnumbered three, four, and sometimes even seven to one. In the last part of the dispatch he says:
My greatest concern is for the prompt build-up of the now outnumbered ground forces of the command.
The sands of time of our freedom are running out.
I want to speak briefly on the question of a defence committee. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is fortunate in that he has an efficient committee, which not only considers his estimates but has his experts before the members of the committee. The members of that committee are informed on the problems met by Canada abroad. It has been said that since the set-up of that committee the Canadian House of Commons has become one of the best informed elective assemblies on the question of international affairs; that is what that committee has done. There have been no witch hunts. Many years ago one can remember in this house and elsewhere statements like this, "What do we need all those embassies for; why do we need these palatial buildings in Paris, Rome and Washington?" One does not hear that remark now, Mr. Speaker, because the committee of this house has gradually been able to inform the members as to the reasons for our embassies and diplomats.

The Address-Mr. Adamson The other night the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a statement in which he referred to what I can only call the maverick behaviour of one Senator McCarthy in the United States. His behaviour is now being called "ordeal by slander" by many of the state department officials, particularly Mr. Lattimore. Now, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that members of this house would behave in that manner does not, I think, do the Prime Minister justice.
It being eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may we know what the business will be tomorrow?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: We shall continue this debate, and conclude it if at all possible.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 5, 1950