1952-12-11

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members probably will have noticed that the clocks do not indicate the correct time and it may appear that we are starting our proceedings today ahead of time. I should like to inform the house that of the 160 clocks in the building, 40 are out of order, but it is expected they will be put in working condition during the afternoon.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Just like the opposition.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the fourth anniversary of the signing of the terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland. In spite of the somewhat shotgun character of the marriage, may I say that the union has been pretty happy. My main purpose in rising at this time is not to comment on that fact but to present a petition from Newfoundland, the first unadulterated petition that has been presented from that province. It comes from the principal constituency in Newfoundland. In accordance with the rules of the house I understand that I cannot say very much at this time about the petition, but it comes from Bell island and asks for the consideration of the house to provide terminal facilities between Bell island and the mainland of Newfoundland.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Sarah Cohen Lintz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Fernande Robi-taille Viel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of John Joseph Francis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Olga Andrews Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Lois Hattie Adelstein Green.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Nellie Slade McCue.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Jean Davis Brady.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Dominique Fiorito.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Pearl Elmeda Clarke Staples.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of James Arthur Bruce.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Bernice Rosen Rapps.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Murray Cecil Day.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Elizabeth Florence Robson Hamilton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Winniefred Ann Maltby Gurlevitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Marie Claude Audette Isabelle Boulanger Douglas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Gaston Courte-manche.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Norma Bernstein Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister a question based specifically on representations made by the Canadian Arts Council. I have sent the minister a copy of their letter. In view of the recommendation in the report of the Massey commission on the arts and sciences, is it the intention of the government to set up at an early date a Canada council for the encouragement of cultural activities as visualized in that report?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: The subject matter of the question is being discussed by the government at the present time and as soon as a decision is arrived at an announcement will be made in the house.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour if there have been any resignations from the national
546

Inquiries of the Ministry advisory council on manpower. If so, what members have resigned, and will a statement be made in. regard thereto?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. Two resignations have been received by the council, one from one of the two lady members representing the women of Canada, Mrs. de la Durantaye. She has been replaced by Mrs. Flore Jutras, Montreal. The other resignation was received from Mr. Rhys M. Sale, president of the Ford Motor Company, one of the representatives of employers. I am not aware that he has been replaced yet.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production, now the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of an advertisement in the Toronto Telegram by Canadian Arsenals Limited, a copy of which I have sent to the minister. Will the minister, in the light of the Department of Labour's request to private enterprise to hire people over 45, explain why Canadian Arsenals Limited, a crown company, is setting an age limit of 35 years for new employees?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say that when I read the advertisement I was as shocked as was my hon. friend. I have made inquiries. No good reason has been advanced for specifying an age limit except that the aptitude of people under 35 for this particular kind of work seems to be better than that of people over that age. I have given instructions that employment shall be given on the basis of adaptability without discrimination as to age.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alcide  Coie@Postmaster General: wish to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) which is reported at page 521 of Hansard, concerning the possibility of reducing the postage rate for unsealed Christmas cards until Christmas. The answer is no.
[Mr. Green.1

(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
"LE soleil"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, during these last few days I had to absent myself from the house to go back home to Riviere du Loup. On arriving here I hasten to make a rectification about a correction which appeared in Le Soleil of December 4, page 3, at the place where the article, about which I had complained the day before, had been published. In view of the good faith shown by Le Soleil, I wish to do it justice.
Le Soleil has asked me to give certain facts. In a note by the editor, it is said that there is no cafeteria in the building occupied by Le Soleil; and then, that the article I have referred to in the house was written by the parliamentary correspondent of this newspaper and sent from Ottawa to Quebec.
Le Soleil has asked me to make these corrections and it is with pleasure that I do so, because, between gentlemen, it is easy to get along.
(Text):



SALE OF NEW ZEALAND PRODUCT STORED IN UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture a question based on the answer given to a question yesterday. Which of the four governments concerned, that of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada or the United States, is responsible for the sale of the 53J million pounds of frozen New Zealand beef in storage in the United States on November 20?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The practice followed under the arrangement is that the British arrange to have the beef which they have bought from New Zealand transferred to the United States, and we in Canada are responsible for sales that are made in the United States to the extent that any government outside the United States is responsible.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and

the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, last evening before the house adjourned I began speaking in support of the Social Credit amendment regretting the failure of the government to bring before the house for adoption a realistic financial system, which kind of financial system might be defined as one capable of making that which is physically possible in a nation financially possible. Of course our present system cannot possibly do that. I quoted, from eminent present-day official authorities, statements that indicate clearly that a world economic crisis is in the making. They indicate also that our main problem in the world is a monetary problem.
I deplored the fact that mankind appeared so fearful of doing anything real to reform our present monetary system, so unwilling even to discuss intelligently what Sir Basil Blackett characterized in 1931 as "the insanity of the monetary system with which man has tortured himself ever since he passed from barter to money."
For an example of the insanity and the torture, take the great depression in the United States. Between the years 1929 and 1934 money in circulation in that nation decreased in quantity from $23 billion to $15 billion. That amount of money, $8 billion, was actually withdrawn from circulation in that country. The great depression accompanied that $8 billion withdrawal with all its concomitant loss, unemployment and suffering.
As another example, take Canada. Between the years 1929 and 1934 $932 million were withdrawn in our nation-and the great depression was on us! I should like to ask whoever consider themselves to be the wisest two men in the Conservative party, so far as money is concerned, to tell me whether they have any idea what the Conservatives would do if a similar state of affairs were to begin to arise in Canada today, and they were in power. I should like the two wisest men in the Liberal party to tell us what they would do.


An hon. Member:: We have not got time.


John Horne Blackmore: You have got no time to look into the future at all! That is why you are so stupid and say such foolish things.


Mr. Goode:: On a point of order, I do not think a senior member of the type now speaking should call anybody stupid. We sit here and listen to him and we think the same thing of him as he has just now indicated he thinks of us.
68108-35J
The Address-Mr. Blackmore


John Horne Blackmore: But the senior member now speaking has got better sense than to talk about not having time to consider one of the world's major problems. There is exactly where the trouble lies. There are too many people in the country today who will hastily characterize as stupid anyone who tries to find a solution. They proceed blandly along supposing that these terrible problems will solve themselves. There is where the trouble lies, and in this respect the Liberals and the Conservatives are equally to be condemned. I should also like to call on the two wisest men in the C.C.F. party to tell us, when they have the opportunity, what they would do if they were in power in case of such an emergency. Any two of them will do just as well as any other two.
Now, what finally got Canada out of the depression?


Mr. Dickey:: The Liberal party.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, that is really good! First I am going to ask this question: What really got Canada into the depression?


Mr. McCann:: The Tories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: The Liberal party; and the Liberal party leader was clever enough to sneak out of it and leave the whole thing for the Conservatives to carry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: That is actually what happened. He knew that the depression was coming on.


An hon. Member:: He started it.


John Horne Blackmore: He immediately started to lay the blame for the whole thing on the Conservative party when actually there was just as big a depression in the United States, and I suppose that R. B. Bennett and the Conservative party caused that too! That just shows how much intelligence the Liberal leaders have brought to bear on these great problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the first thing which began to bring Canada out of the depression was the signing of the Ottawa agreements in 1932. The next thing was preparation for world-wide war. Along about 1933 Hitler began to alarm people and, while the Liberals were claiming the credit for the improvement in Canada after 1935, they did not know there was a similar improvement going on in far-off Chile. Just how they managed to affect Chile that way they have not taken time to explain. They
548	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore never take the trouble to explain problems like that. The third thing which brought Canada out of the depression and brought the United States out of the depression too was world war II. If we had not had preparation for a war and the fighting of war we would have been languishing in that depression at the present time, Liberals or no Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: It was the policy which men followed which caused the difficulty. Until you learn these facts you do not begin to know what it is all about-any of you. What hon. members need to do is to go and inform themselves.


An hon. Member:: What book is that now?


John Horne Blackmore: I can get you many of them.
Why did the war eliminate the depression? Well, in the first place, it limited the production of consumer goods. We were told all through the depression that we had overproduction. All hon. members of the house will recall that statement. It was not underconsumption they thought, it was overproduction. Well, that sounds foolish now, doesn't it? It did not seem to sound foolish to some, however, for they went serenely on deluding themselves and all who listened to them; but the war limited production of consumer goods and concentrated the nation's efforts towards producing war materials. At the same time we distributed throughout the nation the money spent for producing war materials, and that money was used to buy the consumer goods which were not previously going into circulation. That began to improve conditions from the standpoint of prosperity.
The war provided employment for the unemployed-both in the armed forces and in war production. There is no one, even in the Liberal party, who will question that.
We distributed great quantities of money out among the people by means of various payments that were made in the carrying on of the war. Those are the things that brought Canada out of the depression, and when any one of our good Liberal friends thinks he can refute those statements he can take a full period and I will listen to him with great pleasure. I know that he cannot do it.
How could that withdrawal of $8 billion from circulation in the United States have been prevented? How could it have been


overcome? I will let any man here ask himself that. I know that the members of this house are all honourable members and good men, but-


An hon. Member:: Thank you.


John Horne Blackmore: Let every member here ask himself pointedly what he would have done if he had been the president of the United States in 1930 and had seen that withdrawal taking place. What would he have done to remedy it if he had been the president of the United States with full power in 1935? What would he have done to overcome the difficulty, to bring back into circulation that $8 billion? When he can answer that question he is ready to begin to get wisdom concerning these matters.
Meanwhile, notice that the depression in both Canada and the United States was a monetary problem. When the money went out of circulation unemployment developed. People were not able to buy goods. The price of goods went down-mainly on primary production-and all those other terrible things occurred which characterized that depression.
I will ask that same question of hon. members again. I indicated that I would not -single out any particular member as it might embarrass him, but I will ask anybody in the house to answer the question:	How would
you have put that money back into circulation in Canada? How would you have prevented it from going out of circulation?
Why did it go out of circulation? Because the bankers, who are the only ones who lend money, lost confidence and began to withdraw their loans, and refused to advance further loans. How would you have stopped that? How-with your present outmoded and ineffective monetary system, which as I said a moment ago may be characterized as insane?
May we go back in history and take the United States in 1918? This incident is one of the main causes of the problems with which we find ourselves confronted in the world today. Before 1914 the United States was a debtor country. She was worrying almost as much as we now are about how her trade balance could be kept favourable. After 1918 she was very greatly industrialized because the United States had been called upon to be the workshop of the allied world to produce supplies for the fighting forces. She had tremendously developed her productive capacity, and when the war was over she did not know where in the world she could sell the surplus goods that she was able to produce. That was the beginning of the troubles which are torturing us today.

If you had been the president of the United States in those days what would you have done? The United States found that she had $60 billion worth of goods in the country and only $45 billion worth of money placed into circulation with which to buy those goods. Now, what would you have done if you had been president with full power? When you can answer that you are in a position to begin to discuss intelligently modern economic problems.
The United States actually did two things. First of all, she began a system of lending abroad. She lent money in Europe and in other countries so that they might buy her surplus goods. As long as she was able to keep that money going over there into those countries they would buy her surplus and she was able to keep the wheels of her industry running and her people employed. Just as soon as she discovered that she was no longer able to afford those loans abroad-in 1928 and in 1929-trouble immediately began to fall upon her. With the rest of the world she took us down into a depression.
There are a good many members honouring me with careful attention. In order to justify what I say I will suggest that they read the book "The United States in the World Economy", which explains all this very simply and does not involve Liberals, Conservatives or any others. It just tells what happened.
Then the United States, in 1922, instituted the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause. By this she put the nations into an economic strait-jacket which helped to bring on the depression. No one can understand the conditions that we are living in today unless he understands that.


An hon. Member:: You tell them.


John Horne Blackmore: I would be glad to tell them. In fact, I gave several speeches last session on this very subject.
What would you have done, I ask again, if you had been president of the United States? Would you have done as the United States did or would you have tried a financial system whereby you could have put purchasing power into the hands of people and enabled them to buy your surplus goods?
The United States could not do that with the unsound system she had then and has now because all the money she gets into circulation has to be borrowed. She cannot get money into circulation until someone will lend it. There is the trouble with our present system.
Socialism would say "Well, we would redistribute." I ask the socialists and all the rest who are listening: How in the world
The Address-Mr. Blackmcre could you redistribute $45 billion of money to make it buy $60 billion of goods? I just ask the question to show the absolute absurdity of a proposal of redistributing wealth to solve this problem.
Then, there are those who will say "Trade". Anyone who says that the United States was not doing everything possible to trade, just does not know much about the subject. She was doing everything in her power, "blasting her way into the world's markets" in a manner far superior to anything R. B. Bennett ever tried. She was constantly in danger of an adverse trade balance even when she did try to trade.
What did the United States actually do? I have indicated that she used two devices. She started foreign lending which she obviously could not keep up as long as she was lending debt money; and instituted the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause in 1922. The fundamental principle which underlies the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause is the principle of non-discrimination, of which our leaders in this country apparently have now become utterly and fanatically enamoured.
This is where modern talk of the principle of non-discrimination began. Actually it means the very worst kind of discrimination, especially against the weaker economies. Ultimately this policy caused other nations to resort to exchange controls, quotas, high tariffs, attempts to barter and attempts to set up reciprocal tariff arrangements, all of which the United States ignorantly termed economic aggression. The United States designed the Bretton Woods agreement to prevent "economic aggression," as she called it, but did not do one single thing about adjusting this disequilibrium that had grown up, illustrated by the figures of that $60 billion of goods in her possession with only $45 billion of money in circulation to buy the goods.
This whole set-up ultimately precipitated a war. I say once more to the people in the country who will read my remarks, whether anyone in this house will listen, and I am not saying they are not doing it: unless we understand these facts we are not beginning to have the wisdom to understand those quotations which I put on the record last night.
The question will be asked, what would Social Credit have done? Social Credit is eager to tell. People who do not know "shucks" about it are ready to tell all about it. People who do not understand these great fundamental problems are quick to say that Social Credit will not work. That is utter nonsense. Men become blind leaders of the
550	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore blind when they carry on as some members have done here, particularly some of the members from British Columbia.
Social Credit would, first of all, introduce a realistic financial system, one which would make what is physically possible financially possible. Now, on the face of it, is that not exactly what you would want? If, in the United States, there were $60 billion worth of goods and only $45 billion worth of money, the first thing was to make financially possible the purchase of those goods which it was physically possible to produce. The government of the United States did not do that; and that is what caused all the trouble.
Social Credit would introduce a monetary system employing money based upon goods and services and not upon gold, either directly or indirectly. I believe that practically every member in this house would agree with that if he were free to talk about the matter. Social Credit would set up a monetary commission, the business of which would be to see that money came into circulation directly in accordance with the needs of business, both for producing and for distributing goods and services. One of the difficulties with all the orthodox thinking men is that they are ready to issue money in accordance with the needs of business for producing, but not for consuming, for distributing. Distributing in this case means the effecting of exchanges of goods and services to the extent necessary to enable all of the people to enjoy the products of the nation's resources to the optimum desirable degree of production. There is nothing wrong with that on the face of it, is there?
This monetary commission would take counsel with the banks and other lending institutions in the nation and, where necessary, would aid them, to the end that every deserving prospective producer of desired goods and services be afforded financial credit to enable him to produce adequately. There is no one who will object to that, but they do not know how to do it under the present system.
Moreover, this monetary commission would . create dollars and issue them debt-free in such ways, and to such people, and in such amounts, as to enable people to consume the otherwise not consumable portion of the nation's production, or such goods as the appropriate portion of that production might be traded abroad for. I do not think anyone will question the advisability of that, but they do not know how to do it. It cannot be done without debt-free money.
Social Credit would adopt measures adequate for the establishment and maintenance of a just price to producers, comprising the


cost of production plus a fair profit. I think no one will object to that. The question is, how to do it. It cannot be done without debt-free money.
Social Credit would, through the monetary commission, issue to consumers consumer purchasing power in such forms and in such amounts as might be found needful to equate consumption with production in the nation's economy. That sounds sensible, does it not? It cannot be done without debt-free money. Such issues of consumer purchasing power might fittingly be called national dividends.
Now, the financial system-


George Alexander Cruickshank: It would be $25 a
month?


John Horne Blackmore: That is right, the $25 a month. The people who laugh at $25 a month now will be ridiculous in the eyes of their grandchildren.
The financial system I have outlined would render what is physically possible in the nation's economy financially possible. Any financial system not comprising the principles and the techniques I have outlined cannot possibly render financially possible what is physically possible.
The question everyone asks is, would such dollars, created by the commission and issued debt-free, be sound? We hear a lot of silly talk about "rubber" dollars and "funny" money. These statements are based on lack of knowledge and understanding, that is all. That is the kindest thing I can say.
Could the principle of issuing such money be sound? There is one statement on this matter by the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, in his report appearing in the Times, of January 30, 1936. His statement reads:
Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers without reference to the central bank's holding of gold. Thus the nineteenth century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control.
We learnt that a shortage of money may be just as vicious in its effects as an excess, though deflation has still a touch of virtue about it in the minds of many people. Nevertheless it is becoming more and more widely recognized that greater productivity calls for an increased supply of money, for otherwise prices will fall, business will stagnate, and the growing productive capacity will be unused.
For money to be truly "sound" there must be enough of it to finance an ordinarily growing volume of trade, yet not so much as to give rise to an inflationary movement of prices.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely impossible to provide that extra money about which the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna talked, except through the creation and employment of debt-free money. It is



II, 1952

[Stage Direction]
unquestionable that the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna had in mind creating money not based on gold.
Now, what about the Bradbury experiment in Great Britain during world war I?
Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Now, what would you do about-


John Horne Blackmore: I shall answer all your questions later. This whole experiment is well described in "Currency, Credit and the Exchanges" by Dr. William A. Shaw, published in 1926.


George Matheson Murray: What about the gold mines in British Columbia?


John Horne Blackmore: Dr. Shaw is the editor of the Calendar of Treasury Records at Her Majesty's public records office. I discussed this whole matter on June 7, 1951.
Dr. William A. Shaw in 1930 published a book entitled "The Theory and Principles of Central Banking". At page 50 of this book he discusses the Bradbury experiment with great admiration. At page 51 he uses the following words:
After ten years of illuminating experience this perfect, uncontrolled, and uncontrollable automatic currency system was thrown over, the automatic principle was surrendered, and our currency, although declared by law to be inconvertible paper, was placed (or was supposed to be placed) under the control of the Bank of England, and became once again sensitive (or was supposed to be made sensitive) to the vagaries of a fluctuating gold cover fund.
Why was this retrograde step taken, and why did England thus throw over the pure theory of currency issue, which she had accidentally discovered and so wonderfully exemplified to the world?
All those who wish to call Social Credit proposals "funny money" had better consider the opinions of Dr. William A. Shaw, one of the world's greatest authorities. There is no sufficient reason why state money like the Bradbury could not be issued and "spent" into circulation, debt-free.
How much money can be safely created and issued debt-free? The amount depends exactly upon the unpurchased surplus of goods in the nation's economy, and unused productive capacity as regards consumers' goods. That is the answer the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) wanted a few days ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I venture to divert the attention of the house this afternoon to another subject which I hope hon. members will find as important and
The Address-Mr. Graydon perhaps, in some respects, as interesting, as some of the other subjects which have been discussed during this debate. I take part in this debate largely because this fall I was again privileged to be a part of the Canadian delegation to the seventh general assembly of the United Nations. As the minister has given a somewhat comprehensive review of some of the matters which were dealt with at that general assembly, I thought I should say a word about the gathering, viewing it from the position of a parliamentary observer.
We were meeting this fall in new headquarters which were both ornate and highly modern in their appointments. They had a somewhat peaceful setting. I only wish that peaceful setting in greater measure reflected world conditions as we found them represented by the various nations there.
As one goes into the new structure, one finds the seven Canadian doors, made of Canadian nickel, through which the public passes into the United Nations meeting place, and which were the gift of the people of Canada. In the plenary session of the general assembly and in its committee formations one finds many of our Canadians operating there. One finds there, for the first time as the president of this world organization, our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and with him, as chairman of the delegation, one finds the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), and also the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. McLean), the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), who is in the house this afternoon, and Senator Isnor from the other place. When one finds there those Canadians, together with others who are taking part in the delegation work, both as staff, advisers and in other capacities, one feels very much at home at the United Nations these days.
While I was there I was interested in reminiscing on the changes which have taken place since the San Francisco conference. As a matter of fact I think there were there on this occasion at the first part of this general assembly only two of us who represented Canada at the San Francisco conference some seven years ago. In other words, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself were what might be described as originals so far as that earlier conference was concerned.
It was an interesting experience to see the changes that have taken place. Out of the 550 delegates who are there and the alternates at this general assembly, there are less than a score who represented their respective countries seven years ago at the San Francisco conference. This fact indicates the changes that take place both in governments and in

The Address-Mr. Graydon personalities the world over. You would be interested, as I was, in comparing the relative numbers of women delegates present with the number who were at San Francisco. At San Francisco we had a lady delegate on our delegation, but few other nations had one representing them. This time there are some 22 lady delegates from all over the world. Of one thing I am quite sure and it is this. While they are conspicuous by the smallness of their numbers, many of them are conspicuous for the contributions that they make to world peace. I have been thinking, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the whole world misses a good bet in that it does not have a far larger percentage of the womenfolk of the world at the general assembly of the United Nations trying to save the peace of mankind. No section of the world's people have a greater human stake in the preservation of peace than have the womenfolk of the world. Among the personalities who are represented there one finds women like Mrs. Roosevelt, Mrs. Emmett of the United Kingdom, Madam Pandit of India, Senora Figueroa of Chile, and of course the deputy foreign minister of Czechoslovakia, who is a communist, and two other communist representatives on the other two Soviet delegations. But I want to say that I am afraid our womenfolk would not gain too favourable an impression from these three women from behind the iron curtain.
I want to make reference, if I may, to our Canadian delegate, Madame Berger, of Quebec city, and executive secretary of the Quebec Cancer Society. I wish to say that Canada, and this house, can be very proud of the lady that leads the women of this country as a delegate at the United Nations. She will stand up with any of those who represent other countries, in charm, in capability and in industrious application to the work of the preservation of peace.
As a background to our meeting were the United States elections. The decision as to who would be the leader of the leading world power naturally absorbed the attention of many people from all countries while we were there. It would not be fair for me to say that everything about the United States elections, in so far as their conduct was concerned, suited me; perhaps a lot of people down there would not think much of some things that happen in our elections over here. It was as fine and as healthy a display of good democracy as I have seen in many a day. The enthusiasm and the interest-true, there was the carnival and the serious aspect to it-were amazing. Everybody seemed to know the issues; everybody was interested in the issues; everybody was discussing the issues. In addition, they took the election in dead earnest,

I went to a meeting of General Eisenhower in Hackensack, New Jersey. Beside me in the great crowd was a grandmother who asked me to help her lift her grandson up to see the great general. As we lifted the grandson up, a little boy eight years of age, she said: "Take a good look, sonny, your daddy went over with him." I said to her: "Did the daddy come back?" She said: "No, the daddy did not come back", and tears were in her eyes. Judging by the attitude of the gathering on that occasion one got the impression that they regarded General Eisenhower as they might a royal visitor, who had come on that occasion to see them, so great was the ovation that had been given.
The largest meeting that I had the opportunity of going to during one noon hour was that of the other candidate, Adlai Stevenson. It was a gathering of between 75,000 and
100,000	garment workers in New York. There they were jammed in, all interested, everybody keenly interested in what was being said, and in the election in general. Beside me in the crush was a young garment worker. This was indicative to me of how the people felt. The young garment worker was reading a book, and in the crowd I looked over his shoulder to see what he was reading. He was reading a book called "The Constitution of the United States". That indicates to me that we should be very thankful that next door to us is that great republic, which is practising democracy. We may well say that these people are pretty good friends for us to have at this or at any other time, and regardless of how they may conduct the elections, or whom they may elect, the people of this nation and of other nations will have great confidence in the American people, their present government and in the president-elect who will take his place at the head of that nation.
There are only two nations at the general assembly which have multiple-party delegations; that is, the opposition parties being represented. Canada has made a good job of the multiple-party delegation system. At the beginning of this world assembly, Senator Wiley of the Republican party in the United States and myself were the only representatives of the opposition from any part of the world, so we had quite a job to perform, although we were not attempting to represent the opposition behind the iron curtain if, indeed, there is any left there to represent.
I was interested to see that the new secretary of state of the United States, Mr. Dulles, has called for a multiple-party delegation so far as further United Nations representatives from the United States are concerned. I am glad to learn too that

Henry Cabot Lodge, who sat with us in the 1950 general assembly as a representative on the United States delegation, is now to head the United States permanent United Nations group in New York.
I suppose it can almost be said that I have grown up under the multiple-party system of United Nations representation. It is a good system that we employ in Canada, because, after all, the government does not expect the opposition to take responsibility for foreign policy, as it does not expect the opposition to take responsibility for other kinds of policy. On the other hand, the opposition is not bound by the decisions of the government. It does sit in, and it sees the background for these policies from time to time that form around the delegation table. It provides for a continuity of policy and a measure of responsibility in House of Commons debates, and goes as far as is humanly possible, and as far as party differences will permit, to bring about some semblance of a common voice in the councils of the world.
Those of us who believe in trying for such an approach, of course, would like some clarification of some aspects of the government's foreign policy. I speak entirely for the purpose of getting clarification on this point, because it is an important one, and one which has confused me very greatly. I should like some clarification on the emphasis and the importance that we are to give to a cabinet minister who is not the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when that minister is speaking on questions, giving his views on foreign affairs himself as a member of the cabinet on the important question of Canada taking steps, for instance, to establish a north Atlantic political union, or to remove progressively trade barriers between the fourteen NATO nations and the forging of a new political instrument to which all NATO nations shall subscribe. A member of the cabinet has been expressing his views quite freely, and you can readily understand, Mr. Speaker, why I would ask for some clarification with respect to government policies.
From the context of his speeches one would gather that he was speaking on his own personal behalf, but I would like to know if a member of the cabinet, such as the Hon. Wishart Robertson, to whom I refer, can speak personally on such matters without committing his government to the line of policy he advocates. That would seem to flow normally from the principle of cabinet solidarity.
I have no intention of discussing the merits of what he said. It would be improper for me to do so because his statements were
The Address-Mr. Graydon made in a debate in another place. Moreover, I have no desire to reflect unfavourably upon the hon. gentleman, whose high standing in parliament is recognized by all, and I want to make that very clear. It is the principle involved which I desire to have clarified, particularly in view of the fact that no cabinet minister in the Commons, so far as I know, has made or endorsed proposals which the hon. gentleman has put forward in the other place as a cabinet minister. We should like to know also whether we can take his statements as representative of government policy, because I think we ought to be very careful not to have one set of foreign policies in the Commons and another set of foreign policies in the Senate.
I want to come back to the United Nations itself for a moment. Those of us who were at the birth of the United Nations at San Francisco are not going to be very ready converts, I fancy, to those forces who would attempt to disband the United Nations Organization. One hears a great deal of talk, perhaps not in this country but in some others, that perhaps the usefulness of the United Nations has come to an end. I have never been a convert to that belief because, as I heard it explained on one occasion, when the world is sick you do not shoot the doctor. It may be that the doctor is not getting his patient back to normal health quickly and successfully, but I think there is something still to be said in favour of the only organization on a global basis that provides a common table under which the nations of the world can put their feet and talk things over rather than go to war with rifles on their shoulders to fight it out. If for nothing else I think that demands that the Canadian people support this organization.
I would point out to those who from time to time attack this organization, and perhaps I could find many scores of reasons for its being attacked, that on balance we must be cautious and careful in expressing explosive opinions with respect to an organization which may yet be the foundation of a just and lasting peace. There are 60 nations in it and none of them has offered to withdraw from the organization as it stands. Fourteen others are clamouring to get in. That would seem to me to be an indication that the results of the United Nations have not been as bad as some people have said.
Of course, the United Nations, like a parliament or any other organization, simply reflects and represents the kind of world in which we live, a world that is cut down the middle. That is reflected in the United Nations.
May I say that one of the frustrating experiences with respect to the United



G8108-36

[Stage Direction]
554	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Graydon Nations is that it has never reached the position we expected it would in San Francisco, that is that there would be a real meeting of minds. When you sit in the United Nations gatherings you wonder if perhaps the publicity that is given to everything that is said, not only in the newspapers but over the radio and television, does not tend to divide rather than bring together. This sort of thing frequently does open up old sores and creates delicate situations.
I am one who believes that as far as the United Nations is concerned we must give it the support it deserves. In dealing with this matter not long ago The Economist of London said:
The danger is rather of the U.N. being quietly embalmed in honeyed words, to remain indefinitely as an unburied corpse above ground.
I do not think we quite appreciate the great service the United Nations is doing. There are many things that ought to be changed and perhaps there are many criticisms that could be made. One gets terribly bored at the routine day by day dull proceedings which sometimes seem to be only remotely connected with the keeping of peace. I was one of those who felt that the United Nations headquarters should be in the United States. When we were in London in 1945 I was one of those who thought that that was a good idea. I did not have much support from the Canadian delegation, but I made that proposal. I am not so sure I was right. But there is one thing sure in connection with the Soviet union. With the United Nations headquarters being at the very centre of the free press, the free radio and the free television of this world, it has been used by them as a glorified press conference which they could not get at any other time or any other place in the world. I think, more than that, it has been to some extent a provocation to the United States people who are highly sensitive with respect to fifth columns of communist extraction. I think that these are matters which should normally be mentioned.
When you see day after day the obstruction, the discordant notes, the disharmony and the obstacles placed in the way of a proper approach to peace by those who come from behind the iron curtain, it is no wonder that some like myself view with some alarm the coming into the United Nations of nations like red China who would add another discordant note. I say that because I think we must be careful with the present state of the United Nations that we do not admit a lot of other states of communist extraction and communist leanings who would simply join the great bloc and use this organization
[Stage Direction]

as a glorified press conference, the proceedings of which could be beamed to every country of the world. I simply express that personal view because of the experience I have had.
Before I leave the United Nations itself I should like to say that you cannot expect perfect action from the United Nations when it is at war in Korea and yet has not the support of five rather major powers within the organization itself. That creates a confused and conflicting situation but I have no doubt that as time goes on that situation may be clarified.
I should like to mention also a shift in emphasis which is most noticeable in the United Nations. When the United Nations was first set up, emphasis was laid upon the great powers. They had control of the security council; they had the veto. The general assembly was left to the big powers, of course, but the little powers represented a great majority there and it was a majority matter. But as time moved on and the security council became paralysed to a large extent and there was a necessity to by-pass the security council and give the general assembly more extensive powers, as the United States and other free powers attempted to do a couple of years ago when dealing with Korea, new emphasis was placed on the general assembly. I think that emphasis is reflected in the actions of the Arab and Asian blocs as well as some of the Latin Americans. A third force is thus developing in connection with the United Nations general assembly.
In that third force, in which the Arabs and Asians are moving quickly, the Canadian delegation finds itself in a most difficult position. The Canadian delegation has perhaps been faced with no more difficult situation than when they had to deal with the matter of colonial powers and those who have not yet received their independence. Only yesterday in one of the committees of the United Nations Canada was forced to take a position against her old ally France in connection with whether or not the United Nations general assembly was competent to deal with Tunisian and Moroccan disputes.
Do not make any mistake, the soviets are attempting by the new policy which was adopted last summer to drive a wedge between the free powers. Very often they raise colonial and other disputes in order to do that. It is interesting to note that when we were at San Francisco one of every twelve of the world's people had a communist government. This fall at the general assembly we found that one out of every three of the

world's people had a communist government. On the other hand, one realized that while that was happening no less than 624,000,000 people have since the end of the last war obtained national independence by democratic processes. So it is not wholly a despairing report. But nevertheless I want to point out that Korea is by far the central feature of the seventh general assembly. The minister very properly dealt with that as his key subject the other day. As I sat and listened to the speeches of Vishinsky, Lloyd, Acheson, our own Paul Martin and others at the assembly I realized that while bloodshed was going on in Korea the soviets were obstructing in New York. The rock upon which the truce has foundered is of course the question of prisoners of war.
I am not going into that matter in any great detail except to say that many problems were settled at the Panmunjom conference, so many that we are down now to the question of the repatriation of prisoners of war. There are varying estimates as to how many prisoners of war, after screening, actually want to stay on this side of the bamboo curtain. The estimates vary from 38,000 upwards. Of course the soviets have said from time to time that the prisoners of war were not properly screened and that there have been machinations on the part of the capitalist powers who want them to stay where they are. I listened with great interest to the Hon. Selwyn Lloyd, minister of state in the Churchill government, and, incidentally, I do not think I have seen at any United Nations gathering which I have attended better representation of the United Kingdom than that being given by the same Selwyn Lloyd. He made a great impression upon me and I think upon the delegates generally. The following is a summary of what he said -in answer to Mr. Vishinsky:
In June, 1952, he himself had visited Korea and had been an eye witness of the conditions prevailing in a camp of 10,000 North Koreans who did not wish to be repatriated . . . He had been convinced by his conversations with many of these prisoners, chosen at random, with no witnesses other than the interpreter, that they had all taken considered decisions. They had lived under a totalitarian regime and felt that, if they were to return to their countries, certainly their freedom, and probably even their lives, would be endangered. Some of them might still be persuaded to return; and it was to be hoped that that was so since no one could desire the existence of a large number of political refugees in the world. It was questionable, however, whether it was just or humane to place those men at the mercy of governments which they detested and to push them forcibly across the frontier. If attempts were made to do that, there would probably be escapes, suicides and other distressing incidents. That would constitute a crime against humanity.
68108-36J	'
The Address-Mr. Graydon
I think that best describes from an eyewitness point of view the position that is found there. The soviets of course take the stand that under the Geneva convention of 1949 they have the right to compel these prisoners to go back, but the Geneva convention of 1949 did not say quite what Mr. Vishinsky says it said. More than that, after Mr. Vishinsky's long argument in favour of forcible repatriation of prisoners, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and myself heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), having obtained a copy of Mr. Vishinsky's book on the law of the soviet state, read to Mr. Vishinsky from his own book a complete reversal of what he was advocating before the first committee of the general assembly.
Actually the 1949 convention requires that any transfer of prisoners should be effected humanely and that the interests of the prisoners themselves should be taken into consideration. It provides, like the Indian proposal, for release before repatriation. In other words, we are not only in the right on the technical provisions of the convention but beyond any question, I submit, we are in the right so far as the human factors are concerned. It gets down to this: Can we, in all humanity, force these men to go back at the point of a bayonet to face torture or death at the hands of ruthless terrorists? I do not mind saying to the house that I think the conscience of the Dominion of Canada would be outraged if this country did not take the position we are now taking with respect to the repatriation of prisoners of war in Korea.
The Indian resolution of course attempted to find a middle course through the intervention of disinterested states, but like other suggestions it met with the same provocative and hostile blasts from the soviets although fifty-one nations supported and only five opposed it. The soviets were not even polite to the Indians, and anybody who cannot be polite to the Indians cannot be polite to anyone because no one deserves greater politeness or consideration than the delegation from that very great nation.
The minister said that we face three alternatives if the reply from red China with respect to the Indian resolution is a definite no. We of course have always faced those alternatives. There is nothing new in them. The first one is withdrawal from Korea, which of course would be impossible, impractical and unthinkable. After all, we went there for a principle and we are not going to back away from that principle now. If there is any one thing that the United Nations has done so far as restoring peace to the world is concerned it has been to meet
556	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Graydon aggression where it found it and not dillydally and fool with it as happened on previous occasions in the world's history. Therefore that is out.
So far as the question of holding the present line or stepping up the tempo of the offensive in Korea is concerned, the minister was careful not to press his opinion too far in that respect. Both courses have the seeds of danger in them. Korea itself has the seeds of danger within it. One of the things we must watch for, however, is to see that none of us in the free world attempts to become a bull in a china shop with respect to Korea or any other inflammatory trouble spot. If there ever was an occasion for caution, care, perseverance, determination and steadfast resolution it is now, because we cannot afford to make a single mistake if we are going to play our proper part in bringing about peace. It is a delicate situation.
Mr. Stick:: But no appeasement.


Gordon Graydon: No, no appeasement. I may say to my hon. friend that when the question of appeasement arose I thought it was most indicative that one of those with whom I have always agreed-and I am sure my hon. friend will agree as I do-said that in his opinion appeasement in its real form is simply surrender by the instalment plan. That is not what we want and this country will not stand for any such course in the days that lie ahead.
A few moments ago I expressed great confidence in President-elect Eisenhower. We look forward to great things under his leadership so far as that great eastern zone of concern and trouble is concerned. We look forward to what will come out of the forthcoming conference to be held between himself and General MacArthur in the next few days. It seems too bad that a gap which does not seem so great in a sense, the gap involved in the question of repatriation of prisoners, cannot be bridged. It makes one sad to think that, having got so close together, this gap still exists between peace and war.
I want to proffer my own lay views with respect to why the soviets are holding out so strongly. All my views are lay views because I do not profess to be an expert on foreign affairs, although when I attend the meetings of the United Nations I find I am not completely out of place because I have the company of many people from all over the world who do not hold themselves out to be experts, either. Nevertheless, and I want to say this as a layman viewing the situation, it seems to me that the real crux of the situation as far as the soviets are concerned is that they dare not allow prisoners of war


in this case to make their own decision about where they will go after the war is over. Those who cannot trust the loyalty of their own forces in the field naturally take the position very seriously; because one can realize what would happen with the Ukraine, with Czechoslovakia, with Poland, and with any of those iron curtain forces that might meet democratic forces should this principle be established. I fancy, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is all too well known to us, as it is all too well known to them.
The fact that the soviets have taken the strong and unchangeable position they have is a very great black eye to the whole soviet system. It indicates that they cannot trust the forces who are under their command. I say to you that I think, on the principle which we have taken there, we ought to have the endorsement of all people with conscience from one end of the world to the other.
I have to depend on my own watch here, Mr. Speaker, but I have some time left-


An hon. Member:: You have two minutes.


Gordon Graydon: I would like to have more than that.
When Premier Menzies of Australia was here last spring he made a rather interesting statement at the Canadian Club, where I heard him. I thought it summed up things pretty well. He said in effect: We are living in strange circumstances. We have never been in the midst of such prosperity and we have never been in the midst of such trouble. We have a peace that is not a peace and we have a war that is not a war.
That, I suppose, calls for a type of diplomacy and a type of approach by this country and others that we have never been called upon to make at any time before. I suppose we could say that today we are in a peace of nerves instead of a war of nerves; and perhaps the best set of nerves will be a great factor in the triumph which comes to one side or the other.
The more I see of international gatherings, the more firmly I am convinced that the real strength and influence which a country has at those meetings depends on the strength it has at home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: How important it is for us to keep our political, our military, our economic, our social and spiritual houses in order right here in Canada. Today if you are going to be strong away from home you have got to be strong at home. That, I think, must ever be Canada's determination and Canada's resolve in these very, very difficult days.

Like individuals, of course, in a cruel competitive world, nations cannot do their best alone. The world is such a shrunken ball now that everybody is next-door neighbour to everybody else. We are on everybody else's doorstep and they are on our doorstep. The result is that the business of "going it alone" belongs, for any nation, to yesteryear and not to today. With the iron curtain countries assessing national prestige and influence only by military might, the sooner that other powers can reach some equivalent to their dominant military superiority the sooner we can get these agitators for world revolution around a conference table to iron out and settle somehow the differences that divide the world today.
I know that kind of peace is not the kind of peace Canadians want. It is not the kind of peace that the free-powers people want. But you cannot always get the kind of peace you want. Perhaps we are going to have to take a second rate peace, a peace based on force, a kind of peace that is perhaps foreign to our way of thinking. Nevertheless, whatever that peace may be, let us make one solemn resolve: that within limits of honour and decency, and the safety of our people, we will strive for some kind of peace that will assure that we do not have the next generation of our people absorbed in bloodshed such as were those in the two armed holocausts before. That, of course, is NATO's aim. NATO's aim is to get and to force those behind the iron curtain around the conference table in a serious and resolute bid for peace. Peace is the world's sole chance of survival. I want to emphasize those words. I believe in them and I think the House of Commons believes in them. Peace is the sole chance of survival for us all. NATO is our best guarantee for safety in a troubled world. This nation, and this parliament I suggest, must bend every effort towards playing our full part in this practical planning for peace. As a nation we cannot afford to flag or fail while the present challenge stares us in the face.
Now, if I may just have a short time longer, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: In view of the expressed policy of the soviets of splitting the free-powers bloc, I want to say that words or actions of ours should not assist or promote those soviet designs. The application of the policy of the soviets can be seen in their every action in the United Nations today. It is a delicate situation. For instance, right at the beginning of the assembly the problem of Tunisia and Morocco came up. The question was where these issues would appear on the agenda-whether first, second, third or
The Address-Mr. Graydon fourth. That decision was a matter which caused grave international complications. The United States voted, on that particular occasion., to move the problem of Tunisia and Morocco to a higher priority than the French government thought it should have. The serious political repercussions in France over that single vote pleased and gladdened the hearts of soviets everywhere.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say that we must be extremely careful in our language within our great alliance. I am amazed to hear in the House of Commons in Britain, and on the platform there, one of their so-called leaders from time to time making statements which do untold damage to the free world. I give him credit for doing it unintentionally but nevertheless I think that these days our language must be measured and sane. I think it must be language that is well considered in the circumstances because every chink in the free world's armour is being exploited in the cold war-to divide us. The only way we can survive is to close our ranks and persevere, and with resolute determination see it through.
Sitting in the midst of the chaos and the division between the democracies and the communists, between the Occident and the Orient, between the haves and the have-nots, between the colonial powers and the colonies, is that indescribably significant family of nations called the British commonwealth and empire. I think there are more people in this house now than I have ever seen in seventeen years who find great pride and great pleasure in standing up and saying a good word for the British commonwealth. Perhaps yesteryear they did not feel so prone to do that. I am glad they feel that way. When our monarch is crowned in June, we will see this great commonwealth and empire stretching around the entire world, bound with nothing but family ties and without a written constitution or anything in centralized form.
This commonwealth is perhaps the only one of its kind in the history of the world. The vast preponderance of the population of the commonwealth and empire are Asiatic with only one out of six being white, and this gives one some idea, in these days when the Occident and the Orient are drifting farther apart, that we might be in a position to be a voluntary link between all the continents of the world. We may be the link between the varied races, creeds and colours. If my prophecy stands, we shall live to see the day when the British commonwealth and empire will yet be the greatest long-range influence for peace in this troubled world.

The Address-Mr. Graydon
I recall so well, as many other hon. members recall, the time in 1943 when the Right Hon. Anthony Eden, then foreign secretary, stood at the head of that table and said that in the great world peace conference which was to be held he would make one suggestion only, and that was that in cutting the pattern of peace we should not forget that perhaps the greatest pattern of world peace was that provided by the great British commonwealth and empire. I want to say this, too, and it is a matter which has been brought to the house on so many occasions by the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that it need not be repeated. It concerns our position with respect to the Pacific. It is easy for us in the central part of Canada or on the east coast to overlook the fact that Canada is a Pacific as well as an Atlantic power. I want to say one sentence, and that is that in our closer tie-in with the various developments towards peace in the Pacific it is not enough to have the United States-Japanese alliance, the United States, New Zealand and Australian alliance or other alliances which are collateral to them. Last session I thought the Secretary of State for External Affairs was coming to the point where he was about to change his mind on this subject, and perhaps he has that in mind now. I believed that we in the British commonwealth ought to have some place in an over-all Pacific pact. After all, Canada and the United Kingdom are two countries that have a vital, continuing and consuming interest in peace in the Pacific area.
I want to close, if I may, with one observation. One cannot sit in the general assembly, Mr. Speaker, without seeing the less developed countries on the march for better things. Not long ago I heard it said in New York that on this continent we have two-thirds of the wealth and productive capacity of the whole world, and that we have only one out of every fifteen of the world's population. I believe that in itself tells a story. It is perhaps more convincing than any comment that could be made in this house or in the United Nations itself. Perhaps at one time responsibility did not hang so heavily on those who had wealth and productive capacity, but today there is a different standard abroad. It is indicated by the revolution in Egypt under Naguib, where, I am told, one of the main troubles was the fact that there were a few people with all of the money and a great many people without enough, and where there was no proper feeling of responsibility on the part of people who had money for those who had not.
If that applies in individual nations, it applies here in our own country; it applies

in our own community. We have a quickening conscience with respect to the responsibility of the haves for the have-nots, not only in the legislation passed by this house but in the United Nations itself. I want to say that anyone on this North American continent who disregards or treats lightly in the years that lie ahead this responsibility, with two-thirds of the wealth and production held by one-fifteenth of the world's population, is headed for a rude awakening. I leave that to the House of Commons as at least one illustration of the problems that lie ahead in this and other countries of the world.
I am one of those who believe that military needs with respect to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and our own defence call for first priority on this government and this parliament. Let us not make any mistake about that. I want to make this other collateral observation also and that is that in the long, hard pull towards permanent peace our responsibility towards our fellowmen throughout the free world will have to be recognized and will have to be discharged as well if the clouds on that far-away horizon of honourable and lasting peace are to be dissipated and the sun of harmony and justice is to shine again.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure previous speakers will forgive me if I do not follow them in the speeches that they have made. I might hope, as I begin what I have to say, that if it is necessary the house will be as indulgent to me in the matter of time as it has been to my immediate predecessor. However, I shall strive to keep within the compass of the forty minutes.
I rise at this first opportunity to reply to the personal attack made on me on November 25 by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). At that time he used language which you, Mr. Speaker, advised him to discontinue. I shall not reply in similar terms. I was prepared at that time to answer and to prove that what I said in British Columbia was both true and provable. I shall do that today.
The hon. member quoted a newspaper report as my having said:
The Social Credit movement through its leader, Solon Low, has displayed anti-semitism and racial discrimination.
May I put on the record what I actually did say, since these are abbreviated reports and it would be well to keep the record straight. I warned my listeners that the Social Credit movement was steeped in racial prejudice and throughout its existence had shown fbothi anti-democratic and dictatorial ten-

dencies. I did not refer to the British Columbia government as such or, personally, to Mr. Manning, although since they promote the Social Credit movement and are leaders of it, they cannot escape some responsibility unless they are prepared to publicly repudiate the Social Credit movement. I did not mention them in the connections charged by the hon. member for Peace River, although I mentioned them both in another connection later. I then supported my statement by quotations from two documents which I shall quote from today.
First, I shall proceed to show that my reference was not to infrequent or isolated statements by the hon. member for Peace River or by promoters of Social Credit generally, but a part of their general propaganda.
The originator of Social Credit was the late Major Douglas. I am quite familiar with his writings, having, I rather expect, given the first outline of his theory and criticized it when his first six articles appeared in an English paper known as "The New Age", in 1919 or 1920. Major Douglas was a voluminous writer but he summed up his theory and the reasons for it in a volume known as "The Brief for the Prosecution", which was extensively quoted in this house on occasion, by at least one member of the Social Credit party and would, as I shall show, indicate the real background of both the quotation I made in British Columbia from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and some of his speeches in this house.
First, then, the background of the movement. An examination of one of the later efforts of Major Douglas will suffice. In his book "The Brief for the Prosecution" the author of Social Credit uses exactly the same tactics as my hon. friend has used both over the radio and in speeches in this house from which I intend to quote.
Condemnation of ideas, policies, or movements which they dislike are followed by the naming of Jewish persons and most frequently only Jewish persons having any real or supposed connection with such movements or ideas. Not only that but if time permits I shall show that these tactics are invariably followed by Social Credit writers and pamphleteers, published and circulated officially or unofficially by the Social Credit movement in Canada, the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
One thing can be said for Major Douglas and indeed for the late Social Credit member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) that they were brutally frank in expressing their antisemitism-at least they did not damn by association or convict by innuendo.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
At page 162 of Major Douglas' book containing innumerable attacks on Jewish persons we find the following paragraph:
In 1290 Edward I expelled the Jews from England, and twenty years afterwards suppressed the Knights Templars, the direct ancestors of Freemasonry. It is significant that the laws of England which are regarded as 'good law' to the present day unless specifically abrogated, date from Edward I.
His reference to the non-political British masonic order, of which princes of our royal family have been members and indeed filled its highest office from time to time, can be noted too at page 163:
Seven hundred years is but a moment in the life of a race, and the inspection of documents relating to the management of either England or Scotland ' in the time of Edward I will convince anyone that we have perhaps not learnt so much of real consequence as we have forgotten. But it is certain that we are faced with a situation which was threatening England with disaster then, and it ought to be obvious that the first step to take is to restrict drastically alien immigration, and to make naturalization a rare and exceptional concession.
When on the program "Press Conference" broadcast over the C.B.C. on November 19, 1951, Mr. Robert McKeown questioned the hon. member for Peace River concerning the fact-
-that Mr. Douglas, the originator of Social Credit, placed emphasis on anti-semitism and things of that kindthe hon. gentleman replied:
I think you are misinterpreting what the Major said.
He added:
Let me point out that you are classing as antisemitism expressions that might not reveal antisemitic feeling. (C.B.C. transcript).
At page 4660 of Hansard, July 12, 1943, after some vicious anti-semitic attacks which many hon. members will remember, there was placed on record an editorial comment from the Winnipeg Free Press as follows:
There should be no mystery about where Mr. Jaques got his ideas. He is a student of Major C. H. Douglas, the originator of Social Credit theory, and Major Douglas provided the lead his students and followers require in Jew-baiting. Major Douglas wrote his main work "Social Credit" in 1924, about the same time as Adolf Hitler was completing "Mein Kampf", and by curious coincidence, both these works bore the influence of an earlier work called "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion."
On the following page of our official record will be found Mr. Jaques' declaration:
Here and now I say on behalf of Social Crediters the world over that we utterly repudiate and denounce the policies contained in the "Protocols of Zion".
That is, Social Crediters oppose the policies falsely alleged by the protocols to have been adopted by the elders of Zion-"But", said Mr. Jaques, "when you come to read them, how can any reasonable man deny the truth
560	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell of what is contained in them?" This was said in this house and no Social Crediter rose to say that the speaker was not speaking for "Social Crediters the world over".
Indeed, when Major Douglas died recently, the acting premier of British Columbia, Mr. Eric Martin, said:
Speaking on behalf of Premier Bennett and the Social Credit government, I would say that his death (Major Douglas) is a tremendous loss to the Social Credit movement throughout the world. All those who embrace Social Credit philosophy look upon Major Douglas as a financial genius and subscribe wholeheartedly to his monetary reform proposals.
(Ottawa Citizen, Canadian Press dispatch from Victoria, September 30/52)
It may be argued that there is a difference in supporting Major Douglas' general views and those relating to his economic views, but even a casual acquaintance with his writings and those of his associates will indicate that his views are interrelated-a complete whole of the same pattern.
Now with his background established I wish to turn to some statements of my friend the hon. member for Peace River: The hon. gentleman entered this House of Commons in 1945. We met after the election in September. On October 18, 1945, the hon. gentleman purported to examine the United Nations agreement. I quote from page 1259 of Hansard:
I recall that this idea-
The formation of a world federation of nations.
-was put forward in a book bearing the appealing title "Peace in our Time". Its author was James P. Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, the German international financier who played a leading role with Jacob Schiff in the centralization of the money power in the .United States, and its consolidation with the highly-centralized money power of Germany. That particular group of international bankers are predominantly German in origin, stemming from the house of Rothschild in Frankfurt-on-Main. They have become the most powerful financial group in all the world, and they have consistently pursued a policy of centralization of control with the single objective of complete world domination.
It is from that group that the idea of a world federation of nations emanated. However, it was not James Warburg's book which was used as the chief instrument for putting over the idea. It was another book under the title of "Union Now", by Clarence Kirshman Streit which elaborated in great detail on world federation union, with centralized control of finance, international trade and armed forces. The mechanism was ingeniously designed to impose a virtual world dictatorship, under the guise of democracy; which dictatorship, by its very nature, would lead step by step to an absolute world totalitarian tyranny.
It is significant that the hon. member for Peace River singles out Jewish persons only for condemnation for promoting ideas of world federation to which he is opposed. It is just as significant that he does not mention


one single non-Jewish person-with the exception of Clarence Streit-in professing to examine the various steps that were taken towards the setting up of the United Nations. I say, with the exception of Clarence Streit, a person who is not Jewish but whom the Social Crediters have, apparently, on many occasions in the past mistaken for a Jew.
It is significant that someone among the Social Crediters discovered that Mr. Streit's middle name was Kirshman. Here was a golden opportunity. With a name like that it was deduced that Mr. Streit must be a Jew. So whenever his books were criticized in Social Credit papers the complete name was invariably given-Clarence Kirshman Streit-to impress upon readers that here was another Jewish person entertaining ideas of international government-another piece in the "sinister international Jewish plot for world power"-"The Protocols of Zion". The interesting point as I have said is that Mr. Streit is not Jewish.
On September 1,	1950, page 126 of
Hansard, the Social Credit leader purported to examine whereby "Russia has become so powerful and so belligerent between 1917 and the present time". He asks:
Was Russia's rise to the position of being the foremost belligerent in the world the result of accidental growth or was it the result of a definite policy on the part of powerful interests inside as well as outside Russia.
Then he goes on to say that perhaps the facts that he has to present to the house may help to clarify the whole question and provide some answer to it. What are some of these "facts".
He refers to a group of Wall Street bankers as financing Lenin and Trotsky as far back as 1907. Again, he selects Jewish persons. The Dresdner bank, Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg come in for attack. The firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of Wall street, is alleged to have fomented and financed the Russian revolution. The Krupps, the Hugo Stinnes are also mentioned in this connection, although, of course, they are not Jewish.
In the same debate Mr. Low had this to say, as reported at page 128 and 129 of September 1, 1950:
A close study of Russo-American history, I am sure, would reveal the true enemies of civilization, and I think we should be getting after them.
These are an example of the kind of sly insinuations which the hon. member frequently indulges in.
Now I come to the quotation I used in British Columbia, to support my assertion regarding the hon. gentleman. On December

18,	1946, speaking over the C.B.C. program "The Nation's Business" the hon. member said this:
Do you know that the same group of international gangsters who are today scheming for world revolution are the same people who promoted the world war? Do you know that these same men promoted and financed the Russian revolution? Are you aware that these arch-criminals were responsible for the economic chaos and suffering of the hungry thirties, for financing Hitler to power, for promoting world war II with its tragic carnage? Do you know that there is a close tie-up between international communism, international finance and international political Zionism?
This passage is revealing for its confusion and demagogy. The same group is made responsible for exactly opposite things; the Russian revolution and financing Hitler; world communism, international finance, and political Zionism. It cannot have been intended as a serious historical statement, since it is so patently absurd. Recent events in Czechoslovakia confirm its absurdity.
On December 13, 1951, as reported on page 1875 of Hansard, the hon. member for Peace River, referring to the criticism the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) had made on a previous occasion in connection with this statement alleging a tie-up between international communism, international finance, and international political Zionism, had this to say:
The point I was making in that broadcast from which the member for Winnipeg North quoted this excerpt was that I believed fully and deeply that there was a tie-up, and had been for many years, between three international policies: international communism, international finance, and international political Zionism. I am not going to debate that proposition today, because this is not the proper place. I say now that I am prepared to debate it with the hon. member for Winnipeg North or anyone else, because I have the information upon which to base my beliefs, and evidence to support my claim.
Well, the hon. gentleman has provoked a debate with me. Let him produce the evidence, if he can do so.
Now let me repeat if anyone will take the trouble to examine "The Brief for the Prosecution", written by the founder of the Social Credit movement, Major C. H. Douglas, he will find exactly the same tactics used there: namely, the condemnation of movements and ideas not generally popular, followed by the naming of Jewish persons in connection with such movements and ideas. These tactics are invariably used by the pamphleteers and the writers of Social Credit, whether it be in this country, in Britain, or elsewhere. Now far be it from me to defend international finance or its bankers. I have .often been very critical of them. That I am doing. I am pointing out that while many of the powerful international banks
The Address-Mr. Coldwell and bankers are British, American, French and Dutch, my hon. friends name only those with Jewish names.
I wish to examine briefly the 1946 annual report of the Social Credit board-an official body of the Alberta legislature. This was presented to the legislative assembly in the province of Alberta at its ordinary session 1947-to show that the same tactics of innuendo and insinuation invariably crop up in a wide range of Social Credit statements. I might add that this report was presented by A.B. Bourcier, chairman, N.B. James, secretary, William Tofnyn, and F.M. Baker, all at that time Social Credit members of the Alberta legislature and none of them expelled or suspended because they had anything to do with this report. Reference in this report is made to the so-called world plotters, those who are allegedly out to establish an absolute dictatorship on a universal scale-again the protocols of the elders of Zion.
Who are these alleged world plotters? Again, Jewish persons are singled out under the subheading of "More Evidence" on page 5 of this report which I have before me. Eugene Meyer is mentioned as follows:
Early this year. Eugene Meyer was requested by President Truman to accept the presidency of the new World Bank ... It is controlled by individuals who are not responsible to national or international governments.
Listen to this, and I quote from page 6 of the report:
In March of this year, Bernard M. Baruch was appointed by President Truman, as the United States representative on the United Nations atomic energy commission. Mr. Baruch announced his team of 'alternates and co-workers', to consist of: John Hancock, Wall Street banker; Ferdinand Eberstadt, New York investment banker: Herbert Bayard Swope, publicist and journalist; Fred Searis, New York mining engineer.
On page 7 the report singles out Lord Rothschild and I quote:
Lord Rothschild, who is one of the wealthiest men in the world, and who occupies a prominent place in the inner circle of international high finance, leads the socialist group in the British House of Lords.
Lord Rothschild never was leader of the socialists in the House of Lords or anywhere else. And on the same page the late Professor Harold Laski is mentioned as an important influence in the British parliament. All this is followed by this paragraph on page 7 and I quote:
The events of the past year offer further proof of the existence of a deliberately planned scheme which will impose the tyranny of a world slave state on the people of all nations. The foregoing facts are only a fraction of the evidence which may be added to that given in previous board reports, revealing the close kinship which exists between the leading figures in the socialist ranks and those of international finance. It also becomes

The Address-Mr. Coldwell more evident as their plans develop that the forces of socialism and finance are both working with all their might to reach the same objective,-the establishment of the totalitarian world state.
Obviously the circulation of the spurious protocols of the elders of Zion had found their way via Social Credit into the Alberta legislature.
The report in another revealing section condemns majority rule, the secret ballot and the organization of political parties. It suggests the ballot should be signed by the voter before he deposits it in the ballot box.
During the 1947 session of the legislature Premier Manning, under pressure from the opposition parties and Alberta newspapers, made a statement with respect to this report. While he did not repudiate it, he said he wished to disassociate himself "from anything which could be construed as undemocratic."
To show that the Alberta Social Credit board report of 1946 was not an isolated report, let me quote briefly from a similar board report as reprinted in the official paper of the Alberta Social Credit league, "Today and Tomorrow", dated May 4, 1944. This is the 1943 board report and was submitted to the legislative assembly in 1944. Note the heading.
Part VII



PLOT FOK WORLD WAR

[Stage Direction]
The two most accepted text books on the subjects of international government, international police forces, international currency, etc. are "Union Now" -by Clarence Kirshman Streit. "Peace in our Time"-by James Paul Warburg.
Clarence Kirshman Streit was for many years the international correspondent of a large New York newspaper owned by the strongest international bank of that city.
James Paul Warburg is a son of Paul Warburg, founder of the American Federal Reserve System, a director of the same international bank, and a power in international financial circles.
The hon. member for Peace River was, I believe, a member of the legislature at that time, as was Premier Manning-they accepted the obvious innuendo without protest.
Now I wish to refer to the type of publication officially circulated by the Alberta Social Credit league for several years and to literature distributed at Social Credit conventions -national and local. This was referred to in the C.B.C. press conference broadcast in November last year.
Mr. O'Leary asked why poisonous antisemitic literature had been distributed at Social Credit conventions. Mr. Low said that as soon as this was discovered it was stopped. Mr. O'Leary commented that it was not stopped by the Social Credit organization but because he himself had called it to the attention of the attorney general of Ontario when

it was circulated in Toronto, because there was a law against racial discrimination in that province, passed that very year.
As hon. members can see I have a stack of photostatic copies of the publication "Today and Tomorrow" which was the official organ of the Social Credit league of Alberta until it was incorporated in their official national publication-"The Canadian Social Crediter". I can only quote a few examples which display the same innuendoes and sly insinuations designed to foment racial suspicion and hatred. Here is one:
March 30, 1944
oh! oh!
WASHINGTON-President Roosevelt announced Tuesday that Judge Samuel I. Rosenman was resigning from the New York state supreme court to become his special counsel. (Edmonton Journal, September 15th).
We do not suppose that Felix Frankfurter, Benjamin Cohen, Bernard Baruch and the President's other advisers raised any serious objections.
June 3, 1943.
M AIN STREET By N. B. James, M.L.A.
And now these same people are suggesting, in a subtle and roundabout way, that we no longer need our King and Queen, our crown, our constitution and the British empire, and that we should transfer our loyalty to a mysterious nondescript international power, composed of some off-colour individuals of no particular country, and who are incapable of loyalty except to gold or its equivalent.
Remember this was before the establishment of the state of Israel and before any difficulties arose regarding its establishment and when a Jewish force was fighting side by side with our allied forces. I now come to October 12, 1944 and quote from their official national publication, The Canadian Social Crediter.
There are three spheres of activity which, beyond question, are dominated by Judaeo-Free Masonry. They are gold standard finance, international cartelism, and international socialism, the latter masquerading under such local names as the C.C.F., etc.
And, from the same paper dated September 9, 1944, "The organized Jewish race, as it were, the general staff of materialism militant". Or see what prejudice they tried to raise against one of our most brilliant public servants in their French language publication "Vers Demain" and repeated and reprinted in their English language paper, "Today and Tomorrow", on August 31, 1944, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Who is the right-hand man of Graham Towers (Governor of the Bank of Canada) and the inspirer of Ottawa financial policy? Louis Rasminsky, grandson of a Jewish refugee, and trained at the London School of Economics.

And so I could continue with literally dozens of such quotations to indicate that the Social Credit movement has been steeped in anti-semitism.
The hon. gentleman will probably say that he dissociated himself and his party from the French-speaking section. Again "Press Conference" has a revealing question and answer about this, as follows:
Mr.   Blakely@: What are your ties at the present time with the Quebec organization known as L'Union des Electeurs?


Mr. Low:: That is a good question. We have no ties whatever. L'Union des Electeurs disassociated themselves from us about three and a half years ago and there has never been any tie-up since.
Note the words "they disassociated themselves from us." When asked the reason, the hon. member for Peace River had criticized them because:
We felt that they were paying too much attention altogether to such things as you have just mentioned a few minutes ago, that is the question of Zionism. We have felt that the emphasis on that was too great.
It should be noted it was not because it was false, but presumably it was too great to meet the political needs of my hon. friend and his friends. Of the French campaign the Canadian Register, which is the paper of the English-speaking Roman Catholic population *

this was placed on the record of the house on May 16, 1947, to be found on page 3162 of Hansard of that day-had this to say:
It is therefore with feelings of shame and horror that we have noted the publication in Vers Demean, organ of the Social Credit party in this province, of that spurious calumny of the Jews known as the "protocols of Zion." This fantastic forgery, long known to all serious students as false, contains all sorts of nonsensical "revelations" of non-existent "plots". It is a vulgar and crude libel of our Jewish brethren which is capable of causing great harm among prejudiced or uncritical readers.
The protocols of Zion have been circulated by Social Crediters across western Canada, and are among the many books recommended by Major Douglas for reading by Social Crediters in Britain and I presume across the world.
I come now to an official reprint of an article in the Canadian Social Crediter entitled "Intrigue in High Places. An Honest Appraisal of the U.N.O." by E. G. Hansell, M.P. I quote a few paragraphs to illustrate the usual tactics of singling out Jewish people for special condemnation, although be it said it casts grave imputations against other prominent persons of international repute. This reads:
Some of Hiss' advisers were men who were already powerful figures in world finance. Among them was Henry Morgenthau, Jr. whose plan to restrict and demoralize the German economy for the benefit of American financiers has back-fired.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
There was also James P. Warburg who is an ardent advocate of world government. His friend, Eugene Meyer, another powerful banker, became the first head of the International Bank. His successor was John J. McCloy, who sat under the teaching of the marxist Felix Frankfurter of Harvard law school. Frankfurter was exalted to position and power by President Roosevelt and is today a close friend and associate of secretary Dean Acheson, who was largely responsible for the reversal of American foreign policy in China.
May I just comment that no more conservative justice occupies a seat on the supreme court of the United States than Mr. Justice Frankfurter, but because he had a Jewish name the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) brands him as a Marxist in order to condemn him in the eyes of those who will read the article. Talk about cesspool politics. This article by the hon. member for Macleod is just one long deliberate attack on Jewish persons. In the same article he implies that President Roosevelt met a strange death. He says:
Roosevelt died a mysterious death. No one was permitted to see his body.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) had something to say at Trail which in the opinion of the Trail Times of April 17, 1952 and of Mr. Elmore Philpott in the Vancouver Sun carried an implication of the sort I have been discussing. The Trail Times reports the hon. member as saying:
Lester B. Pearson, Canadian Minister of External Affairs, was a protege of a man known as the "Emperor of Canada", probably the richest man in the country.
The Trail Times says that he implied that the unnamed rich man was responsible for Mr. Pearson's support of the new state of Israel. Mr. Philpott observed that it implied the old line of anti-semitism. I say to the hon. member for Lethbridge that he owes it to the country and to the house to name this so-called emperor of Canada, whose protege is alleged to be the minister of external affairs and the present president of the United Nations.
I have dealt only with the recorded or official statements of the party to sustain my statement in British Columbia, a statement which I repeat, that the Social Credit movement has been steeped in racialism since its inception and has shown dictatorial and antidemocratic tendencies. I have no time to refer to the vicious articles which have appeared in the unofficial publication "Social Credit" in this province or to other publications circulated by my hon. friends. I have stacks of photostats here. I have not referred to how Social Credit candidates were Anally chosen in 1935 for Alberta and in 1938 for my own province of Saskatchewan
564	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell by the late William Aberhart and two advisers in Edmonton. They took unto themselves the official choosing of candidates for the Social Credit party in 1935 for Alberta and in 1938 for Saskatchewan.


Mr. Hansell:: That is not right.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member says that that is not right. Let me tell you how I know. My name was sent up to Aberhart against my express wishes, but I am happy to say that Mr. Aberhart listened to what I had to say and did not endorse me. Had he done so I would have repudiated it.
I have not had time to refer to the legislation passed by the Social Credit legislature in Alberta to control the press and so on. The legislation other than that referring to proposed financial policies in Alberta was disallowed because it was properly regarded as an infringement of federal powers and of fundamental democratic rights.
I am confident that I have sustained my assertion. I object to statements which are true in substance and fact being termed by my hon. friends as cesspool politics. Last week in Edmonton the leader of the Social Credit group said that Ontario wanted to get back to old-fashioned righteousness. This is in line with the holier-than-thou attitude which my hon. friend assumes here. But in Victoria he gave an example of his campaign style which is reported in the Vancouver Province of September 27, 1952, and I quote:
In B.C., he said, there have been men who ''bought their way into office and kept themselves there by continual blackmail."
"All they thought they had to do to stay there was to buy nylons for the ladies and whisky for the men", he said.
The hon. gentleman can prove that statement when he speaks, and he is on the list to speak as next but one after me. Let him prove that there were nylons for the ladies and whisky for the men and blackmail by my hon. friends of the Conservative party and Liberal party whose friends were in power in coalition in that province.
His deskmate says that Mr. Pearson is the protege of an unnamed rich man known as the emperor of Canada. Let him prove that. The hon. member for Macleod, in his vicious attack from which I have quoted, implied that some unnamed miscreant-this is from the article he wrote-may have murdered the late president of the United States.
Yes, Mr. Premier of Alberta, we do need a back to the Bible campaign, but religion, like charity, should begin at home. Therefore I suggest that he direct his attention to at least three of his Social Credit followers in the federal house and direct them to the


gospel according to St. Luke, chapter 18, verses 10 to 13. Hon. members recall the story of the two men who went into the temple to pray, one a pharisee and the other a publican. The pharisee walked up to the front and said, "Thank God I am not as other men, particularly not like this publican". The publican stood at the back of the temple, and lifting up his eyes he said, "God be merciful to me a sinner". So far as this holier-than-thou attitude is concerned, the reading of that parable would be a very good thing. Then he might turn the attention of the authors of the speeches I have quoted to the 20th chapter of Exodus wherein are written the commandments, and draw their attention to that which says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour".


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, in my first remarks this afternoon I should like to associate myself with the speech made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). As he mentioned, I had the honour of attending the general assembly of the United Nations for something over a month. In addition to what he has said, may I say that to sit in the great hall of the general assembly at its plenary session when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was elected to the presidency gave me a feeling of great pride, not because he was a member of my party but because he was a Canadian representing a great nation. I further wish to say that from my experiences there, in company with the political delegates from Canada, the representatives chosen from other walks of life and members of the civil service, I obtained a greater appreciation of the worth, value and hard work that it is the custom of our civil servants to perform. I was greatly impressed by their activities and, contrary to the opinion of some, I should like to say that every statement made by a delegate was given careful consideration in committee and in caucus before being finally decided upon. No irrational statements were made at any time.
As a British Columbian I wish to associate myself with others who have complimented the two new ministers from British Columbia, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campneyl, and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). I am sure that it bodes great things for British Columbia. I feel that Mr. Mayhew's appointment as ambassador to Japan was an excellent choice. He has been in public life for many years and is well acquainted with affairs in the Far East. I am sure he will discharge his new duties in an exemplary manner just as he did in the past in the House of Commons.

So far as the official opposition is concerned, I have very little to say. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) did not make a very impressive presentation of his amendment, certainly not such as would lead me to support it. While CF-lOO's cost close to three-quarters of a million dollars, he talked of neckties. While Centurion tanks cost many thousands of dollars, he talked of teapots. After the Leader of the Opposition had completed his speech the observation occurred to me that he had indulged in his usual pastime of raising a tempest in a teapot.
With respect to my own riding of Kootenay East, I believe that this region has been more or less left out of the picture so far as the development of natural gas in western Canada is concerned. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will see to it, as I believe it is within his power to do, that before any natural gas is exported to the United States the east and west Kootenay area will be assured of a reasonable supply. Kootenay East and Kootenay West combined will consume as much natural gas as the entire greater Vancouver area. Therefore it is an important section so far as gas consumption is concerned, and we must have the assurance that a supply will be available.
No doubt the coal miners of the Crowsnest pass region will be in the position of losing some of their markets when gas reaches the Pacific northwest and the Vancouver area. Having lost those markets, it would be tragic if there were not a compensating benefit through natural gas being made available to that region so that new and greater developments might take place.
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to give earnest consideration to the extension of the P.F.R.A. to British Columbia. It would seem from the weather conditions of the last six months that we are possibly facing a drought period. These cycles do come, and when they do we often have four or five years of dry weather.
The Camp Lister area of my riding is at the present time supplying a large portion of the hay for the dairy industry in the Trail and Kimberley regions. It would be disastrous if the producers of hay should find themselves in a position where they were not able to keep the dairy industry supplied, because as a consequence the whole population would suffer through a milk shortage. If it is not possible to extend the P.F.R.A. to British Columbia, if the minister does not consider British Columbia a prairie area within the Palliser triangle, then legislation should be introduced whereby the people who reside
The Address-Mr. Byrne in the drier parts of British Columbia may be given similar assistance, and also in those places where drainage is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, there is another very important question which affects a large section of the people in my area. It is the present situation with respect to railway negotiations. I note that the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) has indicated that he intends to bring in a resolution which I shall read so that it may appear on the record with what I have to say:
Resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, in view of the emergency now existing and the urgency of a program of war preparedness, the government should take into early consideration the advisability of introducing legislation to make strikes illegal for a period of two years, providing, at the same time, for the settlement of labour disputes by arbitration between labour and management.
Mr. Speaker, first I wish to ask the hon. member, personally, not to put forward such a resolution under the Liberal name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It would be contrary to Liberal principles, and it certainly is not in the best interests of the Canadian people generally. Further than that, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see why the railway employees should be singled out for special consideration. Undoubtedly there is an emergency, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) pointed out this afternoon, but there is also an emergency in the kitchens of many Canadian railway employees.
I have figures here, taken from union agreements, which show quite conclusively that railway employees, generally speaking, are not as well paid as those in other organized industries. The railway industry is the most important in Canada. Without railways we can have no other industry. It is a common fallacy throughout Canada to think that railway employees are very highly paid, the aristocracy of labour. That is a complete fallacy, because I am sure that few of the aristocracy work the hours that are necessary for a railway trainman to make $4,000 a year or even $3,000 a year. To make $3,000 a year a railway employee in the running trades must work longer than those in most other organized industries. He would necessarily have to work 300 shifts. In other industries if a man worked 300 shifts he would make considerably more than $3,000. I have known a man to work over 400 shifts in a year on the railway and yet make only $4,000. A worker in industry where union agreements which call for overtime are in effect would have made in the neighbourhood of $6,000 or $6,500.
566	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Byrne
It is not my intention to spend a great deal of time on the question, and I do not feel it is my duty to act here on behalf of any organized labour group; but I say we must understand that the railways are working under a certain amount of government control. It is a restricted organization. The railways are not free to bargain and give wage increases without having to make compensating increases in rates. Such increases, of course, do have political repercussions. I feel that railways are sufficiently important that the attention of this house should be drawn to the matter at this time; and I think I can do so most aptly by reading an excerpt from a recent speech made by the president of the C.N.R. to the Canadian Club. I do not intend to discuss freight rates, but I do think people should begin to think about this whole question. He said:
Canadian railways now are without the reserve rolling stock and facilities they used to accommodate an enormous expansion of traffic on the outbreak of war in 1939.
He further said:
. . . realistic planning must recognize rail transport as the backbone of a Canadian defence effort and this recognition must express itself in a willingness to give railways at least as much encouragement and assistance as is given defence industry generally.
To deny the railways the right to earn a subsistence level of revenue would be foolish at any time; to do so in this uncertain state of world affairs could be tragic.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to another part of my address, perhaps not so important to some but not unimportant to me. For the past half century Canada has looked toward and enjoyed greater unity of racial and religious groups. Religious controversies and criticisms of religious matters are almost strictly taboo except, of course, in the case of some religious fanatics. No responsible religious group will publicly criticize another for its beliefs or sacred rights. In the interests of Canadian unity, so important to our cultural and economic development, this principle should be inviolate. It is because of this, Mr. Speaker, that I view with a great deal of alarm the fact that one Canadian political party seems to be taking advantage of this general immunity. Seeking refuge under the cloak of religion they hope to avoid any criticism while realizing their political ambitions to become a Canadian political power.
You may ask what basis I have for making such a statement. I have here in my hand a clipping from the Windsor Star of December 6, datelined Kingsville:
Socred Chief Sees need for Religious Revival


' r
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was, I believe, speaking before a church group in that town, and I quote:
Throughout his talk, Mr. Low quoted passages from the bible which indicated that Social Credit, besides being another political party, is seeking to bring the divine law which God gave to Moses as the foundation for government policy.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) quoted a passage from one of the Victoria papers which I had hoped to obtain. Lacking that, I intended to paraphrase what I thought the leader of the Social Credit party stated while in Victoria. It is in the record now, so I need not repeat it. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar quoted a very apt biblical phrase, and certainly the reference to the commandments was very effective.
I do not like to mention my own party alone as one which I believe is based on religious principles, but I should like to quote from a resolution which was adopted by the 1948 and 1952 conventions of the national Liberal party. It reads:
Liberalism has three key words: Unity, security, freedom. Liberal policies are those which protect, sustain and enlarge the freedom of the individual. The Liberal believes no man is fit to exercise irresponsible power over others. He believes in freedom because he believes the resources of human personality and endeavour to be rich and varied beyond calculation or prediction. He believes in freedom because he believes the community of individuals associated in family, church and diverse free associations to be broader in extent and richer in experience than the state.
These various principles have been extended into Liberal legislation such as the family allowances. Would the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) say that is unchristian? The legislation in connection with old age pensions is Liberal legislation. Would the hon. member say that is unchristian? I do not say that the opposition members did not favour this legislation, but in addition to favouring the legislation the Liberals had the courage to introduce it and raise the money to pay for it. This has been Liberal policy, and it has been followed by Liberal governments. Without quoting further there are many such Christian principles embodied in legislation introduced and presented by Liberal governments.
What does the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) have to say when questioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning Social Credit policy with regard to social legislation? This quotation is found at page 236 of Hansard for December 1, 1952, and reads as follows:


Mr. Knowles:: Would you do away with welfare legislation?-


Ernest George Hansell: I would like to answer the hon. gentleman's question if I may. It has always been found that you cannot readily retract or undo something the country has already done-
What was the necessity, Mr. Speaker, of making that statement if it was not the intention to attempt to undo that legislation?
-but I would say that the greatest welfare that can come to the people is to leave with them their absolute freedom to act according to their own conscience-
We could very easily have done that and not introduced the social legislation that we have introduced. I have some more excerpts from the speech by the hon. member for Peace River. I cannot believe that these statements are intellectually completely honest. I refer again to the article in the Windsor Star of December 6, which reads:
Citing examples of hidden taxes which consumers shoulder, Mr. Low said that 84 per cent of the consumer cost of a quart of lubricating oil is made up of taxes-


Solon Earl Low: Which is right.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If that is so, then it is made up of royalties going to the royalty-hungry Alberta government.


Mr. Wylie:: What about the federal government? Tell us about that?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I shall tell you about the federal government. The federal sales tax on oil amounts to 10 per cent. I do not know the exact figures, but I presume a quart of oil at the manufacturers' level would cost about 25 or 30 cents. Regardless of that fact, the tax is 10 per cent, and the other 74 per cent apparently goes in royalties to the Alberta government.
There is something significant about this, Mr. Speaker, in that in Ottawa gasoline costs 43 * 5 cents per gallon, including provincial and federal taxes. The federal tax amounts to 3 cents, while the provincial tax is 11 cents. In Kimberley, the largest city in my riding, gasoline sells at 45 to 47 cents per gallon, and that is almost at the wellhead. There is something significant about that fact when you consider that gasoline consumed in Ontario comes from as far south as Texas.
Continuing to quote from the same newspaper article, the hon. member said:
... a $4.95 pair of overalls contains taxes to the tune of 75 per cent of the purchase price.


Solon Earl Low: That is right.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps it is right. I suggest that some of the taxes have gone to swell the coffers of the Alberta government in the form of various payments by the federal government to the provincial authorities.
The Address-Mr. Byrne
Now, as further proof of their highly religious attitude, I should like to draw to the attention of the house an item which appeared in the Victoria Colonist, dated November 29. It is written by staff writer T. A. Myers, who evidently attended the Social Credit convention in Vancouver.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It kind of worries you.


An hon. Member:: We are worried about you.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Don't worry about me.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why should anybody?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: At this convention it was brought to the attention of the gathering that one of their members was about to die. The British Columbia legislature is going to be the first legislature to have the honour of seating a Speaker who had been shot at by a Liberal. The convention was informed that the life of one Thomas Irwin, M.L.A. for Delta, was in danger. The congregation was called upon to pray for the hon. member's welfare. That, Mr. Speaker, was an extremely honourable thing to do if the member's life was in danger. However, at the same meeting-I do not presume to say at the same moment-health minister Eric Martin arrived on the platform, and had something to say, speaking of Mr. Philpott. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to him earlier. I want to say that I met Mr. Philpott in the Columbia riding and heard him speak; and I know that what he had to say was anything but complimentary to the Social Credit party. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to those who heard him he exposed the fallacy of Social Credit doctrine.


John Horne Blackmore: No; he did not. He could not do it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The article reads as follows:
Health Minister Eric Martin made no secret Friday of his bitterness over Vancouver Sun columnist Elmore Philpott's opposition to Social Credit in the recent by-elections.
Describing himself as a former gravedigger, Martin said he proposed to raise two headstones to the C.C.F. They would bear the simple inscriptions "Similkameen" and "Columbia".
"Beside these would be two smaller graves," the health minister told the Socred convention. "On one would be Harold Winch. And we would have the decency to put R.I.P. under his name.
"The other grave would be for Elmore Philpott. But we wouldn't put R.I.P. under his name.
"We would put R.I.H.," said Martin with emphasis.


Major James William Coldwell: How Christian!


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: And I do not believe he meant heaven.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Tell us what happened at the by-elections.

The Address-Mr. Byrne


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Martin was condemning Mr. Philpott to eternal hell fire. I believe that is what he meant, perhaps jokingly. However, that is what he said at the same time as, or perhaps a few minutes after, they had prayed for one of their members.


An hon. Member:: Squirrel-cage stuff.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What inconsistency! Another columnist of the Vancouver Sun, Mr. Barry Mather, was led to comment a day or so later in "Open Letter", the title of his column, addressed ;to "Health minister Hon. Eric Martin":
Well, I see you consigned Elmore Philpott "to H . . . ". How Christian can you Socreds get?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: What was in the dashes? You seem to know everything else.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I learned my Christianity and my faith at my mother's knee and the usual places from which such information is disseminated. I do not propose to be converted by a politician in the guise of a prophet. I am sure the Liberal party has no objection whatever to more religion in politics, and that it will gladly accept it. But what I object to is too much politics in religion.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: What are you reading from now?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member asks what I am reading from. That has been one of several of his interjections. I am just reminded that the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), on rising to speak the other evening, took serious objection to interjections from this side of the house while he was speaking or while Social Credit members were speaking. I took the trouble to investigate with respect to the speech that was made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham); and I found that while he was speaking there were some 30 interjections, 23 of them from the Social Credit party. While the hon. member for Acadia was speaking there were two interjections, and both of them were from the Social Credit party.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Speaker, may I just point out to the hon. member that I did not object to interjections. I merely mentioned the fact that interjections on the part of the British Columbia members displayed an interest in the Social Credit movement. I was not objecting at all.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member indicated that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and the hon. member for Vancouver

South (Mr. Laing) were behind the times in their ridings and, if I recall the matter correctly, that they should catch up. Let me tell the hon. member that the organization from which I came into this house was not particularly known for its reactionary tendencies.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to use my time today for the purpose of replying to the speech made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) last Thursday evening; but inasmuch as the C.C.F. leader has injected himself into this debate at this time-


Major James William Coldwell: Injected himself? I think you interjected with your scurrilous attack.


Solon Earl Low: I am content to leave that word "injected" stand, Mr. Speaker. As the leader of the C.C.F. has injected himself into the debate at this time, I feel it is necessary for me to say something in connection with what he brought forward today. The case that I have to present in connection with the speech of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys I will reserve for another day or two until the opportunity arrives, but it is coming forward just the same.
The leader of the C.C.F. had taken two weeks to prepare a case, and he read it so fast and so completely without stopping to tell us where his quotations started and where they ended-


Major James William Coldwell: No, Mr. Speaker; I gave every quotation and every reference. If the hon. member cannot be fair, let him try to be truthful.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, no matter what I thought about what the leader of the C.C.F. said while he was speaking, I did him the courtesy of listening to him and of keeping my mouth shut, as did everybody else. In all fairness I ask the leader of the C.C.F. to do the same thing.


Major James William Coldwell: I will do that.


Solon Earl Low: He has the chance to get back on his feet if he wants to, and say anything he desires to say with respect to what I am going to say. But he has never in his life been courteous enough to do that as I have suggested, and I say it is high time that he learned something about courtesy.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He will never learn from you.	.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that the croaking we hear from the direction of Fraser Valley simply indicates how this person is so dissatisfied that he feels like

jumping off the lily pad into the pond and drowning himself. I think that is perhaps what he should do.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is high-class stuff.


Solon Earl Low: We over here listen to that croaking fairly often and it has not much sense to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is old-fashioned righteousness.


Solon Earl Low: The leader of the C.C.F. has had more than two weeks to prepare his case and, as I said, he read it so rapidly that it was impossible for anybody to tell where his quotations ended and where other quotations began. Therefore, until such time as I have had an opportunity to see the actual record, it is impossible for me to take up and deal with every single thing he said. I think even he would grant that that statement is correct. However, I do want to deal with some of the things I was able to catch as he went along. I will say now, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the C.C.F. has shown himself, in addition to being a master of the smear technique out on the hustings, to be a master of evasion in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, are these words "master of smear technique and master of evasion" parliamentary?


George Alexander Cruickshank: A new religion.


Major James William Coldwell: A new religion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the question of privilege raised by the leader of the C.C.F. is well taken. I do not think the hon. member for Peace River should accuse any other hon. member of being a master of evasion. I think he should withdraw these words.


George Matheson Murray: Crucify him.


Solon Earl Low: I certainly want to keep within the rules of order, Mr. Speaker, and I will not use any language at all that is offensive. However, I want to be as strong as I possibly can within the rules, in condemning a practice which I think certainly has no place in our Canadian life.


Major James William Coldwell: Whisky, nylons and silk stockings.


Solon Earl Low: I will answer the hon. member when I come to that. When any charge is being heard in a court the two important duties which devolve upon the court are: One, to test or to judge the credibility of the witness or witnesses; and two, to weigh the evidence that is presented in relation to the charge or charges that have been made and to reach a decision as to the guilt or innocence of
The Address-Mr. Low the accused on the basis of those facts. That being the case, then certainly we can proceed to examine for just a moment the credibility of the witnesses heard today.
In the first place, the statements that I complained of on the second day of this session were made when the leader of the C.C.F. party was out in British Columbia fighting an election campaign against the British Columbia government, not against me. I remind hon. members that that was so. He was not fighting me, nor was he fighting my movement. At that time he was fighting the British Columbia government. At least he did not start fighting me until he was challenged by Premier Bennett of British Columbia, and then he adopted the tactic of shifting his charges to me and to Mr. Manning.
In order to give evidence of what I just said I should like to read into the record some of the reports of his meetings to indicate what took place. I bring as witnesses newspapers of British Columbia. I shall quote briefly first from the Vancouver Province report of November 8, 1952, an article headed: "Cold-well Scolds C.C.F.'ers." The article goes on to say:
C.C.F.'ers who heard their national leader speak at Pender auditorium Friday night will not likely give a second choice vote to Social Credit candidates in future elections.
M. J. Coldwell branded the new provincial government as one steeped in "racial prejudices" and "dangerous to freedom and social progress".
That was what he had to say on that night as reported by the Province of November 8.


Major James William Coldwell: I said precisely what I said today.


Solon Earl Low: As I said, I am bringing my witnesses. You have had your chance to bring yours. Two days later the premier of British Columbia took issue with the leader of the C.C.F. party, as reported in the Victoria Times of November 10. An article in that paper had this to say:
Premier W. A. C. Bennett today hotly demanded that C.C.F. national leader M. J. Coldwell name the cabinet ministers he claims are "steeped in racial prejudice", or apologize publicly to the people of British Columbia.
It goes on to say something further about what Mr. Bennett thought, and near the end of this same article in the Victoria Times we find this:
After branding the Social Credit government as one steeped in racial prejudice and "dangerous to freedom and social progress," Mr. Coldwell, in his Vancouver address, scolded his party for electing five Social Credit candidates on their second choices.
That is essentially what was contained in the statement of the Vancouver Province of November 8.

The Address-Mr. Low
Mr. Cold well: The same reporter.


Solon Earl Low: No, not the same reporter. One paper was the Victoria Times and the other was the Vancouver Province. My third witness is the Vancouver Sun of Sunday, November 10, which had this to say under the heading "Coldwell Panicking, Declares Bennett."
Coldwell fired his broadside during a meeting in Vancouver Friday night.
Premier Bennett denied flatly that his government is "steeped in racial prejudice."
"This statement is not true," he said.
The Colonist, which is another Victoria paper, on November 11, under an article headed "Bennett Fails To Get Apology", had this to say:
Premier W. A. C. Bennett failed to receive last night the public apology he has demanded from M. J. Coldwell, national C.C.F. leader, for a reported statement that B.C.'s new government was "steeped in racial prejudice."
In fact last night's Courtenay, V.I., speech by Mr. Coldwell, may have given the premier more incentive for demanding apologies.
The C.C.F. Leader told an audience in the Native Sons hall he had no intention of apologizing to Premier Bennett "or anyone else" for anything he might have said on his western speaking tour.
"I did not call the Social Credit party fascists," Mr. Coldwell said, "But I did say the Social Credit party, throughout its history, has dictatorial attributes, shown undemocratic tendencies, and through its leader, has displayed anti-semitism and racial discrimination."
"I can tell you also that Sir Oswald Mosley's group and the British Social Credit party have the same address in London," he said.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Solon Earl Low: "Same address in London." We will go on to the next clipping, which is taken from the Victoria Times of Tuesday, November 12. It had this to say under an article headed "Coldwell Charges Repeated Here."
C.C.F. Leader Refuses Apology to Bennett; Says Socreds Preach "Racial Antagonism".
Speaking to a capacity audience of 600 at the Crystal Garden Tuesday night, C.C.F. leader M. J. Coldwell repeated his refusal to offer any apology to Premier W. A. C. Bennett for his reported remarks that the B.C. government is "steeped in racial prejudice."
Mr. Coldwell said he was misquoted.
"My remarks," he said, "were made not with regard to Premier Bennett's cabinet but to his party." He said that the Social Credit party has preached racial antagonism and racial hatred both in B.C. and elsewhere.
Mr. Coldwell quoted from a copy of a broadcast made by Social Credit leader Solon Low over the C.B.C. in December 1946. Mr. Low, he charged, said: "Do you know that the same group of international gangsters is responsible for the hungry thirties, the financing of Hitler, the promotion of world war II . . . they are international communists, international financiers and international Zionism . . . blame it on the Jews".

That is an absolute distortion of the thing which I did say, as I shall show a little later on. I shall read into the record exactly what I said.


Major James William Coldwell: I gave the reporter the document from which I read. I said: "There it is".


Mr. Fair:: Is that type of thing permitted in the house?


Solon Earl Low: The report of the statement made by the leader of the C.C.F. shows a distortion of what I did say. I shall read into the record later from the speech which I made on December 28, 1946. Under date of November 12 the Vancouver Sun reports:
Coldwell Hit Again By Bennett
The running battle between Premier W. A. C. Bennett and national C.C.F. leader M. J. Coldwell continued today when the premier charged Cold-well was "dodging the issue" by refusing to apologize and evading his own previous statements.
Coldwell was quoted as saying in Vancouver last week that the new provincial government is "steeped in racial prejudices" and "dangerous to social progress".
Premier Bennett called immediately for an apology.
Coldwell speaking subsequently in Courtenay and Victoria flatly refused to make an apology.
Then it goes on to state some of the things that have been stated which I shall not bother the house with right now. Then the article continues:
Evades Issue
"While differing with his political views, I had always looked on Mr. Coldwell as a fair-minded man and I'm at a loss to understand why, when called upon either to explain his statement or apologize, he completely evades the issue and his own previous statement, and instead makes reference to the Social Credit movement elsewhere," he said.
Premier Bennett said he was confident that Premier Manning and other Social Crediters named by Coldwell "are well able to answer for themselves".
"I call again on Mr. Coldwell, before he leaves our province, either to name the members of my cabinet to which he refers or to apologize to the people of British Columbia," said the premier.
There were no apologies whatever. The thing went on. for several days. I should like to mention that that is one thing that should be considered when we are facing this whole issue. This is one of the things by which we will have to judge his credibility.
In the second place, he was angry when he said these things. He scolded the C.C.F. in British Columbia for casting some second choice votes for Social Credit, just as if it was not their right to do so. They had the right to vote as they pleased. He was also bad tempered about the whole thing, particularly over the failure of the C.C.F. to win the government. It was only natural that he would vent that bad temper on the people who stood in the way of the final realization of his dream.

There was anger and disappointment at the fact that the people of British Columbia had indicated that they did not want socialism. That is to be understood. The third thing which should be considered in judging the credibility of the witness, and I think this casts serious doubt upon his credibility, is that he and his colleagues have continued as long as I can remember the C.C.F., ever since they came into existence in Canada, to stir up class hatred and to blame private enterprise and capitalists and capitalism for everything that goes wrong. That in itself is one thing that casts doubt upon his credibility. I think impartial judges will be hesitant to attach much credibility to a person who would make the kind of strong and unqualified charges which the leader of the C.C.F. made on such flimsy and distorted evidence.
I say to hon. members of this house that he must think the people of the country are very gullible if he thinks they are ready to accept as proof the far-fetched stuff he had with him on his election journey into British Columbia, or even what he has presented here today.
The question we have to face at the moment is this. What were the charges he made and which I complained of two weeks ago in this house? He said that the British Columbia Social Credit group was steeped in racial prejudice. His second complaint was that Solon Low, the leader of the Social Credit party, had displayed and preached antisemitism and racial discrimination. Third, that Premier Ernest Manning of Alberta had attacked the worth of the secret ballot. Fourth, that the Social Credit movement itself is steeped in racial prejudice, anti-semitism and racialism of all kinds.
As I said on the day I raised this matter in the house, these are serious charges and should not be taken lightly. If the C.C.F. leader sought to gain sympathy in the house this afternoon by stating that 1 attacked him, let the house be aware of the fact that an attack came from him in a place where I could not answer it. That is the fact of the matter. I am sure that the people, knowing that, will not extend too much sympathy to the hon. member when he claims he was attacked.
I say further, as I said at the time, that the charges just simply do not make sense in the light of the way in which we Social Crediters have conducted ourselves over the years, in the way we have lived and in the way we have treated people in the process of living. The leader of the C.C.F. can look through the files of Hansard or newpaper reports or anything else and he will not find that on any more than one or two occasions
The Address-Mr. Low have any more than one or two of our members ever so much as mentioned the name of a Jew, and it was not for the purpose of holding him up to derision in any respect.


An hon. Member:: As Jews.


Solon Earl Low: As Jews, certainly not. We have tried to live in harmony with our fellow men and to deal constantly, as the record will bear out, with the great issues that face the Canadian people and the people of the world generally. Therefore it seems a pity that the leader of the C.C.F. should spend his time in vicious attack or whipping up hysteria with fabricated and false charges rather than trying to show the Canadian people what solutions he has to offer for the terrible problems that face them and for the terrible afflictions under which they now suffer.
The kind of gossip, and that is about all you can call it, in which the leader of the C.C.F. indulges out on the hustings is something that you would scold a child for, particularly if it was indulged in by a public school child. But it becomes contemptible when it is indulged in by what are supposed to be grown-up men.
When we consider the evidence we must ask: What is anti-semitism? I think hon. members of the house ought to give some thought to that question. The leader of the C.C.F. did not define the term at all because what he wants the people of this country to believe is that anti-semitism means simply being against the Jews, holding them up to contempt or ridicule, whipping up a pogrom against them or something of the kind. Actually, anti-semitism means being opposed to any or all of those people who are descendants of Shem. That would include the British people,, the United States people, the Jewish people, the Arabs and perhaps others.


An hon. Member:: And Canadians.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, it would include Canadians. Actually anti-semitism as it has come to be applied to things of this world means just exactly that.


An hon. Member:: Don't apologize.


Solon Earl Low: I am not.


An hon. Member:: You are apologizing now.


Solon Earl Low: Will the hon. member for-
An hen. Member: What about Freemasons?


Solon Earl Low: I do not know anything about Freemasons.


An hon. Member:: I do not think you would.


Solon Earl Low: I have never said anything against them.
572	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low


An hon. Member:: If you knew anything about them you would not even mention them.


Solon Earl Low: I think what the leader of the C.C.F. and his colleagues have in mind when they charge anti-semitism is that we are attempting, with intent to do harm, to hold up the Jewish race to ridicule or perhaps incite acts of persecution against them. If that is not right then I wish the leader of the C.C.F. would put me right.


Major James William Coldwell: If the hon. member wishes me to do that I would say that I think that the statements made from the records I quoted here speak for themselves.


Solon Earl Low: Well, Mr. Speaker, having given the definition of anti-semitism let us proceed. Let us look at one other point. It is one thing to mention a person by name. For instance, I have heard people right in this house mention one of our colleagues who sat to our left some years ago as "Fred Rose, the communist", but it just happened that Fred Rose was a Jew. If someone in the house or outside of it should say, "Well, Fred Rose got what was coming to him. He was a communist. He should have got fourteen years", or something of that kind, I ask the question: On that evidence would you be prepared to condemn the speaker as antisemitic? Just stop and think about it for a moment. What was the intent? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is something you have to keep in mind as you look at this whole question. What is the intent?
I say that the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) has not proved one single thing about intent, not one thing, and on that basis I say to you his whole case is null and void. If one is to be proved guilty of anti-semitism in the sense in which I have just defined it- and I think there is no other definition that can be justly used-or of racialism, then in the sense the C.C.F. use the term it must be necessary to prove that the intention is to stir up hatred against a particular race or to incite overt acts of hostility. The flimsy evidence submitted by the C.C.F. leader does not begin to establish anything of that kind whatsoever. I know in my own case that if I have ever mentioned the name of a Jew, a Frenchman, a Scotsman, a Chinese or any other individual the intent certainly was not to stir up hatred against his race, and I reserve the right at any time to mention the name of any man of any race if I feel there is something to be said against or about his actions.
The leader of the C.C.F., because in the house two weeks ago I raised the question of what he had been saying on the hustings,

COMMONS	!
would have just as much reason to call me a religious bigot for attacking someone who belongs, let us say, to the Anglican faith as he would have to claim that we are antisemitic simply from the fact that some members of our group have mentioned the names of Jews. If childish charges of the kind made by the C.C.F. leader can be established as easily as he thinks they can, then he himself might well be charged with religious bigotry and persecution on the ground of his personal attacks on me. I do not look upon what he has said in that way at all, because I would not stoop to that sort of pre-adolescent behaviour for any political advantage that could come to me.


Major James William Coldwell: Holier than thou.


Solon Earl Low: The technique used today by the C.C.F. leader, by which he strained to prove guilty me and the Social Credit movement, which I have the honour to lead, was first of all to try to prove guilty some of the people who were formerly associated with us. I wonder what the C.C.F. leader would say if we tried to brand his whole party with being unpatriotic pikers on the sole ground that in 1939 the founder of his movement, Mr. Woodsworth, said these words, as recorded in Hansard of September 8, 1939, page 47:
We laud the courage of those boys who go to the front; yes, I have boys of my own, and I hope they are not cowards, but if any of those boys, not from cowardice but really through belief, is willing to take his stand on this matter and, if necessary, to face a concentration camp or a firing squad, I shall be more proud of that boy than if he enlisted for the war.
I merely ask the question. I am not going to attack Mr. Woodsworth for one second. I am not going to attack those who follow him here today as being unpatriotic pikers simply because their leader at that time said that sort of thing. But that is exactly the kind of charge the C.C.F. leader makes against us when he quotes Major C. H. Douglas, the founder of the Social Credit movement, and says that because he has said something about Jews therefore it must brand our whole movement as anti-semitic. I think that is childish.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not what I said.


Solon Earl Low: That is exactly what you said, and I will say something further. I wonder if he would be prepared to accept for his whole party the implications of what Mr. Rodney Young, one of his party members, said in the debate on the North Atlantic treaty in the house on April 29, 1949. I should like to ask him about that. If there was ever a communist speech made in this house that was it. It is to be found at page 2795 of Hansard for April 29, 1949. Is he

prepared to accept for his whole group the implications of that speech?


Major James William Coldwell: No, I do not. I used your own speech.


Solon Earl Low: Certainly not. Therefore you have no right to use similar tactics.


Major James William Coldwell: I used your own speech.


Solon Earl Low: I will deal with that.


Major James William Coldwell: Your own speech.


Solon Earl Low: I will deal with that. I will come to my own speech eventually, but let me make my case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: You see, Mr. Speaker, when things begin to hurt these people will not give you a chance.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh yes, we will.


Solon Earl Low: I also wonder whether the leader of the C.C.F. party and his colleagues in the house are prepared to accept for the whole C.C.F. movement the implications of what was said in Calgary back in 1943 by one Harold Winch, for whom the leader of the C.C.F. was campaigning in British Columbia, when he said the things he did about me and the Social Credit movement in order to try to elect the said Winch as premier of British Columbia. Let me ask him if he is prepared to accept the implications of these interesting words-and I quote from the Calgary Herald of November 11, 1943:
Use of force is advocated by C.C.F. coast leader. Harold Winch, C.C.F. leader in the British Columbia legislature, made another speech in this city on Tuesday evening, and his remarks on this occasion synchronized with many of his previous utterances. Mr. Winch steps boldly on ground where Mr. J. H. Coldwell-
I think the initials are wrong but that is the way it reads.
-his national party leader, treads gingerly. The latter is trying to be all things to all men until he gets into power. Mr. Winch blurts the truth out. He declares that force, and lots of it, will be used to apply a socialist regime in this country once his party is elected to power at Ottawa. He likes the word "revolution". It rolls off his tongue with great frequency and it does not mean "evolution".
In speaking on "The Shape of Things to Come", this third party leader from the coast left no one under a false impression as to his ideas and what he favours. He is not a pussy-footer but a zealot after the pattern of Herr Hitler. It is evident that he has studied how the Fuehrer beat down all opposition on his way to supreme power. Ruthlessness and impatience with opposition stand out in all the Winch utterances.
Once in power, he told his Calgary audience, the C.C.F. government would get action at any cost, even at the cost of overthrowing free institutions. As for the B.N.A. Act, which embodies the Canadian constitution, he told a questioner that he would
The Address-Mr. Low
scrap it and mould it nearer to the C.C.F. heart's desires. Hitler made similar threats away back in 1933 and later.
This is the part I want to emphasize.
Mr. Winch declared that if and when his party assumes power at Ottawa it will institute socialism immediately and use the country's police and military forces to enforce its will against all who opposed the law.
Then there is another article concerning the same gentleman in the Calgary Herald of the same date. The heading is, "Time for Revolt says C.C.F. Leader." The article reads as follows:
Harold Winch tells audience here change is coming in Canada "peacefully or not"
Politically and economically, a change is coming in Canada and it is coming "peacefully or not". Harold Winch, C.C.F. member of the British Columbia legislature for Vancouver, barked out this threat last night in answer to a question asked by a member of his audience in Memorial Hall where he made a speech on "the shape of things to come".
Now, I just ask you, Mr. Speaker, will the C.C.F. allow us or anyone else, without very serious complaint and without fighting back, to brand their whole movement as fascist or communist simply because a member, an unthinking and runaway member of their group, made a statement like that back in 1943?


Major James William Coldwell: In your own speeches.


An hon. Member:: It is a long time.


Solon Earl Low: I would like to know if the C.C.F. are prepared to accept this for their whole party:
People shout at us that this is socialism, bolshevism. Maybe it is. What of it?
That is a statement made by their own founder and leader as reported in the Border Cities Star on December 12, 1932. Are they prepared now to accept the implications of that for the whole party?
Well, I think perhaps it might be wise to bring them down just a little closer to the present time. I heard an interesting speech in this house yesterday, I think, by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and I am going to ask the C.C.F. leader if his group is prepared to accept the implications of what the hon. member said when he referred to corporation and business taxation. Does that reflect the policy of the C.C.F.?


Major James William Coldwell: You have asked the question and I will answer it. Certainly it does not reflect the views of our party.


Solon Earl Low: All right.


Major James William Coldwell: I say no at this time.


Solon Earl Low: Ninety-nine and nine-tenths per cent of what the leader of the C.C.F. had to say was based on evidence of that kind.

The Address-Mr. Low


Major James William Coldwell: No, it was not.


Solon Earl Low: It was. I know that the leader of the C.C.F. would not allow me to place those implications on his party without protest. I know that he would brand us as distortionists if we tried to make that type of accusation on evidence which I say is just as flimsy and no more relevant than when they try to brand me and the whole movement as anti-semitic because he finds that someone at some time associated with us said something about a Jew. That, of course, is utterly childish, and it is beyond belief that a grown man would allow himself to be activated by such a thing.
There were one or two other things, Mr. Speaker, which the hon. gentleman said to which I would like to refer. I cannot reply to all of them because sufficient time is not mine at the moment; but I will have time, as this is only a beginning. I will take time and, if the house wants some entertainment, we will have it. Before calling it six o'clock, I would say this. The leader of the C.C.F. referred to a broadcast which I made on December 18, 1946, and that is the only evidence he had upon which to accuse me of being anti-semitic.


Major James William Coldwell: And your speeches in the house.


Solon Earl Low: This was a radio broadcast given over the C.B.C. network on the evening of December 18, 1946, and is what I had to say in summing up the whole situation that obtained in Canada at the time of the espionage trials and the revelations that were made in this house regarding espionage.
I quoted a number of very interesting things that had been going on, saying that it placed Canada and the commonwealth, including Great Britain, in grave danger. I am not going to take just a little piece out of the context, as the leader of the C.C.F. is so fond of doing and trying to make it appear something that it is not, so I will read you the context of what I said at the end:
Now, fellow Canadians, how could such a state of affairs have developed in Canada unless men in high places were favourable to this treason-monger-ing? Why is it that the publications of the commission's findings have been practically ignored?
Why is it that Zaroubin, the Soviet ambassador, who by his conduct violated the recognized code of diplomatic relations, was withdrawn from Canada, promoted and appointed as ambassador to Great Britain by his Soviet masters; and-this is the incredible part of it-accepted by the British government without any protest being voiced by the Canadian government? Does that not indicate to you that there are very powerful forces at work?


I suppose my hon. friend will try to make it appear, when I mentioned Zaroubin, that I thought he was a Jew.
Do you know that the same group of international gangsters who are today scheming for world revolution are. the same people who promoted the world war? Do you know that these same men promoted and financed the Russian revolution? Are you aware that these arch-criminals were responsible for the economic chaos and suffering of the hungry thirties, for financing Hitler to power, for promoting world war II with its tragic carnage? Do you know that there is a close tie-up between international communism, international finance, and international political Zionism?
There ends the quotation, Mr. Speaker, and there is not one word about Jews.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Solon Earl Low: Well, Mr. Speaker, how long has it been since the people of Canada cannot discuss a policy without having minds try to distort it into meaning that they are whipping up hatred against a race?i
International communism is a policy, a movement; international finance is a policy, a movement; international political Zionism is a policy, a movement; and I was opposed to all three at that time. I linked them together because there was plenty of evidence-and I have that evidence and can produce it at the proper time-


Major James William Coldwell: The time is now.


Solon Earl Low: These three great movements had deliberately plotted to destroy Britain's attempts to exercise the mandate in Israel as she was supposed to. They had made it impossible for her to go on, and were determined to destroy Britain's strength and to achieve their aims by revolutionary methods, by what I believed and still believe to be methods which would place this world injeopardy of war. That is why 1 denounced them. I did not have any intention whatever of branding Jews.
I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will grant me this one privilege. Surely it is evident to anybody who has done any studying or thinking at all that when a person mentions international political Zionism it includes far more adherents than Jews. International political Zionism has adherents and has had adherents all over the world- many of them Scotsmen, many of them Englishmen, many of them Americans-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Solon Earl Low: Certainly, and I can name some of them right in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Name them.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow this up and complete my case at another time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, when one intervenes for the second time in a debate I feel that perhaps a word of explanation or even apology is necessary. My apology is that I wish to refer to an incident which, though it concerns one individual primarily, I think concerns us all because I firmly believe it is a matter where gross injustice has been done through political interference. I refer to the case of Robert Pitt of the Fort Garry hotel, Winnipeg. I shall try now to satisfy the house that what 1 have said is true, and that no reasonable man can come to any other conclusion on an examination of the facts.
Mr. Pitt himself has kept silent; therefore I am confined entirely to and I rely entirely on what has appeared in the press. I believe everything I shall quote from the press is from the Winnipeg Tribune. I believe there are a lot of people in this house who are in a position to say-though the Tribune does not need any endorsement of this kind-of their own knowledge that what the Tribune says is true.
On September 10 last the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and a party visited the Fort Garry hotel. Approximately two months later the manager of the hotel, an old and valued servant of the Canadian National hotel system, was sent from the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg to the Prince Edward hotel in Brandon. Now, it is interesting that the report which appeared in the Tribune was brought to that newspaper through the instrumentality of the hotel workers. The phrase used by the Tribune is that a spokesman for the Fort Garry hotel employees gave them the information which they set out. I think that has special significance. I shall have other things to say to indicate the quality of Mr. Pitt, but I think it is of some significance that the men who had worked under him-incidentally it is pointed out that he had substantially reduced the staff of the hotel, so it looks as if he had perhaps not always done things that the union wanted him to do-give this account which is produced by the Tribune.
I should add that this was not a formal statement on behalf of the union. Lest I forget later, I might read here what the union said on that point. Officials of the union
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell denied that their organization charged that there was political interference in Mr. Pitt's demotion. This is what they say:
Although staff members intended, protesting the C.N.R. decision, even though it is a managerial problem, they now feel the airing of the situation in the Tribune makes this move unnecessary.
I read from a report in the Tribune, which is dated November 13:
But hotel employees today listed two specific incidents for which they allege Mr. Pitt was called on the carpet.
The first is "that the Prime Minister and his party were not properly received at the hotel rotunda". This newspaper explains the scene exactly as it happened, and I think it is very easy for us to picture that. I quote again from the newspaper:
At the time the party entered the hotel, Mr. St. Laurent was surrounded by a group of young Liberals who had met him at the C.N.R. station at 11 a.m. They headed directly for the elevator through the crowded lobby, making it difficult for Mr. Pitt, who was standing in the lobby, to approach and welcome the Prime Minister.
Now then, the second complaint is "that there were no rooms immediately available for all the members of the party". Reservations had been requested the previous day.
I do not know which of these two complaints is the most trivial and childish. I think we can picture the scene; the Prime Minister entering the hotel and being surrounded by his supporters, of which he has no doubt a considerable number in Winnipeg. They surrounded him and were with him until he took the elevator to go to his quarters.
The only possible way one could imagine any failure on Mr. Pitt's part, the only thing I can suggest is in itself a nonsensical thing. The complaint apparently might be that Mr. Pitt did not force his way through the group in order to present himself to the Prime Minister; a sort of bucking the line technique.
The second complaint is perhaps of a slightly stronger character. It was that there were no rooms immediately available for all members of the party. Here perhaps we find something which we can understand better. Here we may find some very important personages, at least in their own minds, who take themselves very seriously and who may have fancied that they had not been treated with all the deference to which they considered themselves entitled. The report makes it clear that the reservations had been requested only the day before. In a busy hotel like this, we all know you cannot always count on getting your reservations on such short notice. I can only imagine some of these people, as I say, were aggrieved. It is stated, as I shall point out later, that the
576	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell complaints which these people made did not come from the Prime Minister. I should think this sort of thing would interest him less than most people, but the complaints came from people on his staff.
Shakespeare has words for it:
But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured, . . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven As make the angels weep.
There you have this picture in Winnipeg on September 10. Two months later comes the word to Mr. Pitt that he is to go to the Prince Edward hotel in Brandon.
I now want to draw your attention for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to this man's career in the hotel business, in the employment of the Canadian National hotels. He was the manager of the Nova Scotian at Halifax from December 8, 1931 to November 1, 1941, practically ten years. I am reading now from the answer I received from the Department of Transport. Then he went into the army and was in the army for several years, in the armoured corps-losing his eye, incidentally, during the war-but came back, was able to resume his duties and was manager of the Bessborough at Saskatoon from August 15, 1946 to July 12, 1951 when he was transferred to the Fort Garry. Does anyone imagine that a man who had served for that length of time in that capacity would not know how to treat a Prime Minister or would not know how to treat appropriately the other people who were with the Prime Minister? Of all the requirements that a hotel manager must meet, I suggest that probably that the proper treatment of his guests stands out above all the rest.
Are we to assume that this man, with this experience, who is taken back after his army service and who goes from one large hotel to another; are we to believe for one moment that these childish suggestions could apply to him? I cannot believe that. I do not think anyone in this house can believe it. Nevertheless according to this record which, as I say, came from the labour people, he was demoted for that reason. I regret to say that the president of the Canadian National Railways gave a different reason. I regret that Mr. Gordon, for whom I have immense respect, gave this reason because I cannot accept it and I do not believe anyone in this house can accept it. What he says is this:
Changes in management affecting several hotels follow normal reviews of hotel operations that are carried out by the general manager of hotels.


In other words we are apparently asked to believe that this man who had been manager of the Nova Scotian hotel, with 150 rooms, for 10 years-


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was never manager of the Nova Scotian hotel.*


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading now from the answer I received from the Department of Transport, which one likes to assume is correct.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Or partially correct, anyway.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I read:
He was manager of the Nova Scotian at Halifax from December 8, 1931 to November 1, 1941.
If that is wrong I wish the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) would tell the Department of Transport that it is wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will speak about this matter a little bit later.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All right. He was manager of the Nova Scotian, according to the Department of Transport, for 10 years, leaving it to go into the army. He then went to the Bessborough hotel, a hotel with 260 rooms; and according to the Department of Transport-which apparently may be wrong -he was appointed on August 15, 1946, and there is nothing to indicate that there was any gap there. From this I assume that, when he went, on July 12, 1951, to the Fort Garry, he went from the Bessborough.


An hon. Member:: How many rooms has the Bessborough?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Bessborough has 260 rooms; and he is now sent from a hotel with 260 rooms to a hotel with 80 rooms. Yet we are asked to believe that this is normal procedure. If it is normal procedure, all I can suggest is that the Canadian National Railways business is carried on in an abnormal way, something which I do not believe. It is no wonder that the Winnipeg Tribune reports as follows:
Of those contacted by the Tribune today-
That was November 14.
-none accepted C.N.R. president Donald Gordon's explanation of Mr. Pitt's transfer to a lesser post, which was announced on Wednesday.
I do not wonder that nobody accepted it, because no reasonable men would accept it.
I wish now to refer briefly to the answers I received from the Department of Transport to the questions which I asked. The first one to which I wish to refer is this. I am not reading all the answers because some of them are just references to the
See amended statement on page 579.

facts of his service with the railway company. However, I asked this question:
Had there been any complaint regarding his work there?
That was at the Fort Garry hotel. The answer is "Yes". I believe that is an unworthy answer, because there is a great deal of evidence-and I shall read some of it in a moment-to show that he was a highly efficient man. The fact that he held these various appointments showed that during all those years the railway certainly thought that he was efficient. I believe this answer is either inaccurate or that it refers to some very trivial matter. Of course it is conceivable that it refers to the complaint to which I am taking objection. It is conceivable that it refers to this complaint which was made following September 10. But on that matter I think we are certainly entitled to know more. I do not believe any complaint worthy of the name was made with regard to him. As I say, the evidence of his record in the hotels is all against it.
The second question I asked was whether his salary had been reduced when he was sent to a smaller hotel, and the answer was no. I also asked what had been the salary of the previous manager and that information was refused. That is an interesting question because if, in fact, the Canadian National Railways business is carried on in such a way that the manager of a rather small hotel with 80 rooms gets the same salary as does the manager of one of the company's largest hotels in a western metropolis, with about three times as many rooms, then all I can say is that it is a curious way to carry on business; and I shall be greatly surprised if that is indeed the way business is carried on. I should be interested to know the answer- for I did not get an answer to this question as to what the previous manager's salary was-and whether it would not have shown that it was lower.
That thought raises in my mind this question, and it must raise it in the mind of every man in the house. If it is a fact-which I surmise, from just looking at the situation -that he was sent to a smaller hotel with the same salary which he would not ordinarily have got, then it looks to me as though there may have been a twinge of conscience and that after treating him in this disgraceful manner, in order to alleviate the matter a bit he was left on the same salary. That is surmised; nevertheless I think any reasonable man would make that surmise on the facts as I have brought them forward.
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell
The other question I asked and that I wish to refer to was this:
Was any complaint, verbal or written, regarding any incident at the Fort Garry hotel during the Prime Minister's visit on September 10 last, made to the railway or hotel management or to the Department of Transport, or to any representative of any of the foregoing by or on behalf of the Prime Minister or of any one of those who were accompanying him at Winnipeg on September 10 last?
The answer to that question appeared in rather a curious form. When I first received it, I took from it a meaning that, on further study, I think perhaps was not intended. I have read the question to you. It was not split up in any way. It was one question, just numbered "3". The answer goes like this:
3. No.
Then below that is written:
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
And below that again is written:
3. No.
When I got that first I thought what it meant was that the Department of Transport was answering only for itself, and it was giving no answer as regards the railway company. But it has been suggested to me- and I think it accords with what Mr. Gordon himself has said, and I shall refer to that later-that that first "no" was intended to be a general "no" affecting my whole question. At any rate the matter is not of very great importance because Mr. Gordon has given a separate answer in which he says:
No complaint has been made either by the Prime Minister or on his behalf in respect to his recent visit at the Fort Garry.
These are Mr. Gordon's own words. If this matter is to be left here I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it leaves us all in a very unfortunate position. I believe that these answers have been given without a full knowledge of the facts. I do not believe it is possible to survey what has happened and to believe that what happened on November 12 or thereabouts had nothing to do with what happened on September 10, and I hope no one will try to say that was the case.
Some ingenious person makes a point regarding Mr. Gordon's statement which I have just read, and here I quote again from the Tribune. After saying that the hotel staff members emphasized that the complaints were not laid by Mr. St. Laurent, but by one or more members of his party, it goes on to say:
Gordon did not mention complaints by other members of the Prime Minister's party, which were reported by Tribune local and Ottawa sources.
578	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell
In other words, the suggestion is that Mr. Gordon's denial covered only the Prime Minister, but made no denial in so far as the members of the party were concerned. I will read it again:
No complaint has been made either by the Prime Minister or on his behalf in respect to his recent visit at the Fort Garry.
I think this was intended to cover the members of the party. Where does that leave us, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that no sane man will doubt that these two incidents were connected. To assume the opposite is to assume that the management of the Canadian National hotels are taking leave of their senses. It is to assume that an unworthy man, a man who did not know how to greet the Prime Minister, a man who did not know how to show proper consideration for the people who were travelling with the Prime Minister, was kept in the service of the company all these years and promoted from time to time.
I want to point out that the suggestion that he was in any way inefficient is contradicted in the strongest manner by the guests in the hotel themselves. I read again from the Tribune:
Permanent guests contacted today said they had no complaints about service which would reflect on Mr. Pitt's management.
All praised him as a valuable asset to the hotel.
Said one guest: "I have been here 12 years. I have never met a finer man. He is the essence of refinement and does his best for everyone, always. We feel very badly about the situation."
As I say, to assume that these two events are not connected is just to assume that we are living in a world of unreason where two and two do not make four. It is no wonder that the Tribune asks the following question in an editorial on November 13:
The Tribune's report of the dismissal of Robert S. Pitt from his position as manager of the Fort Garry hotel, and his subsequent transfer to Brandon, is chiefly important because of the one big question it raises in the public mind: Is there political interference in the management of the C.N.R. or its hotel system on the part of government functionaries close to the Prime Minister?
Then later:
Was Mr. Pitt given any kind of a fair trial? Were the complaints against him and his hotel investigated? There is no evidence that we have been able to uncover that the answer is in the affirmative to either of these questions. Rather, the answer seems to be that the hotel manager was removed from his job without proper investigation because someone in the government or close to the government had thundered. It will be a bad state of affairs for the Canadian National Railways if it is saddled with government interference in management.
1 want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, how this kind of thing can happen. We are not that kind of people. In this house we differ on many things, but 1 would say that this house


has a sense of fairness, and I believe that if all members were free to express their opinion they would agree with me that this is an obvious case of outrageous injustice. It is not possible to reach any other conclusion but that directly or indirectly there was pressure. That is what the Tribune says, and that is what I believe. We are not that kind of people. How does this kind of thing arise? I think it is clear that is arises when people have too much power for too long. They just begin to take themselves too seriously; they begin to throw their weight around. This is a lamentable situation, a distortion of the ordinary sense of fairness of the ordinary Canadian, just because he has got to the state where he is, I believe, throwing his weight about and taking himself too seriously.
This whole matter is far bigger than the Fort Garry hotel and Mr. Pitt. It raises the whole question not only of the Canadian National but of the use of power. I hope there will be such widespread indignation arise out of this that it will not be able to be hushed up, that it will be dealt with and that justice will be done. I hope the Legion will come to the rescue of this excellent officer. I hope the union, which has already earned our gratitude by bringing this matter out into the public, will press it; and I hope every fair-minded man will press it to the point that reparation is made, and made now, not months from now, when it is slithered into and nobody is looking, and there is no real reparation of the injustice because the man is still left under a cloud.
And finally, I put it up to the Prime Minister who was there. He, I believe, would have no patience with this kind of thing. I put it up to the Prime Minister that here is a case of injustice that should be remedied, not at some time remote from now, but now; and not in any hole in the comer fashion but in the open, so that everybody knows what has been done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I had not intended to take part in this debate. I do so only because of the speech that has just been made, and for an important reason. For a great many years- for many more years than I have been in the House of Commons-it has been the accepted principle in this chamber that there shall be no interference with the internal management of the Canadian National Railways. I think anyone who has been here as long as I have will say that never in his experience in this House of Commons has there been such a speech made about a man not a public servant but a servant of the Canadian

National Railways. However, that has been done by the last speaker, and my hon. friend must take the responsibility.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will take it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us see what facts he bases it on. He does not know anything about the case-he admits that-except what he reads in the press.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do know it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is your authority?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I said
deliberately that I was not repeating conversations; that I was confining myself to what was in the press. I am quite content to rest on what is in the press and leave it there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All he knows is what he reads in the paper. That is a well-known background.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You do not
even know what is in the papers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must correct what I said in the heat of the moment. I had forgotten that Mr. Pitt was the manager of the Nova Scotian hotel. I had forgotten that; I would like to correct my interjection immediately.
I do not know anything about Mr. Pitt's ability. I have been in hotels that he has managed; I have never met him at the Fort Garry, and I had not expected to meet him, except by chance. I have been there two or three times since he was manager there. The Prime Minister said exactly what I am saying. When this first became a public issue he said: "I did not meet Mr. Pitt. I did not expect to meet, and did not meet him."


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is not the
Prime Minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Prime Minister was not with the party that arrived the day before. I understand there was some unpleasantness associated with the group that arrived earlier.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why do you
believe it if you don't know it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was told-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why do you
believe it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You made your speech, and a very bad speech indeed.


An hon. Member:: It was not as bad as yours.


An hon. Member:: It was a lot better speech than the one we are listening to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question that was asked here was answered by the Department of 68108-37J
The Address-Mr. Howe Transport to the extent that these questions are always answered, on the basis of the information available in the Department of Transport.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the
minister contradict anything that was in the Tribune?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not tried to contradict a newspaper. The answer was given as the information in the department would permit.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You answer what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend does not need to get hysterical. He has committed a very bad blunder and he had just better let it go at that and let me make my few brief remarks. If we accept the principle that has been laid down here tonight-this is the reason I am challenging his position-the movement of any superintendent from one place to another can be debated in this house, and the movement of any hotel manager either up or down can be debated in this house. If anyone thinks the Canadian National Railways can be operated on that principle, I am not one of them. Having said that, that is the only point I wish to make.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not a very good one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know nothing for or against Mr. Pitt, but I can say that I know enough about the management of every large corporation to know that the remarks made by my hon. friend are not going to help Mr. Pitt very much in the service in which he is employed, which is not the service of the Canadian government.


An hon. Member:: We expected that from you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that a threat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no part in or authority over the management of the Canadian National.


An hon. Member:: That is the big stick.


An hon. Member:: We thought you would do it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Even the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) has intelligence enough to know the fact about which I have commented.


An hon. Member:: That is going some.^ Thank you very much.
580	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dickey


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the highest compliment I could ever pay him; he has just about that intelligence. The point I am making is that we have had tonight a deliberate attempt to interfere with the internal management of the Canadian National Railways under the guise of doing some good to someone. My hon. friend admits that he knows nothing except what he has read in the papers. I am willing to accept his statement in that behalf, that he is talking about something of which he has no firsthand knowledge and of which I have no firsthand knowledge. Any insinuation that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or anyone on his behalf made any representations for or against Mr. Pitt I deny on the authority of the Prime Minister, who told me that that is the fact.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, in entering the debate at this time it is not with any intention of making a detailed report on the defence production program. It is both more convenient and more proper that such details be made available to hon. members through the report of the Department of Defence Production for the current fiscal year, through the special committee on defence expenditures, or when the estimates of the department are being considered by the house. On the other hand, it is approximately six months since the right hon. Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) spoke last in this house regarding this program and there have been significant developments since that time. These have occurred both in the field of raw materials and in our actual production and procurement programs.
Most hon. members will be aware that in recent months there has been a distinct improvement in the world supply of raw materials. Evidence of this is the fact that in the last six months the international materials conference has felt that the situation permitted them to disband the committees on pulp and paper, on wool, on cotton and on cotton linters. Furthermore they have decided that it will no longer be necessary to recommend the allocation of cobalt, tungsten and zinc.
Here in Canada we have continued our policy of releasing controls just as quickly as possible. On May 26 control orders on lead, zinc and cadmium were lifted. On September 9 the minister announced the sale of the Emerald tungsten mine to Canadian Explorations Limited. During the past year explorations by this company on its own mining claims established substantial additional quantities of tungsten ore, with the result that the Canadian position has eased.


On September 17 the minister also announced that control orders covering copper wire and rods, rod copper and copper alloys and aluminum had been lifted, making it no longer necessary for industry to submit their orders to the department for approval.
Order in council P. C. 4212, dated October 9, 1952, removed pulpwood and newsprint from the list of materials declared essential under the Defence Production Act. Those commodities had been declared essential, not for domestic reasons but in order to permit the government to implement allocations recommended by the international materials conference. When the pulp and paper committee of the international materials conference indicated that the necessity of allocating pulp and paper for strategic purposes no longer existed, the government removed those commodities from the essential list.
By order in council P. C. 4551, dated November 28, most of the chemicals which had been declared essential under the Defence Production Act were removed from that category. This again was initiated because increased production had brought the supply of these materials into balance with demand.
On November 17 the control order on sulphur was revoked. This has been made possible in part by the fact that in recent months the supply of sulphur in the United States has been slightly greater than demand, thus enabling authorities in that country to revoke their control order, and also due to the fact that sulphur-producing facilities recently established in Canada were getting into production.
These decontrol orders have, of course, been announced by the minister as quickly as decisions have been taken. However, I have reviewed them this evening.in order to emphasize that the government is in fact implementing its avowed policy to keep the control machinery of this country to the absolute minimum consistent with the requirements of our defence effort. On the other hand, as the world's foremost exporter of many of these materials, we have a serious responsibility to our allies to make the greatest possible contribution to their essential requirements. Consequently we must keep the supply of these strategic materials under constant review, and this will be done.
We shall continue also to encourage increased Canadian production. All that need be said in this connection is that expansion programs undertaken by our major primary producers are progressing satisfactorily.
One of the essential materials over which we have had to exercise control has been steel, but there are now indications of improvement in the steel supply. Our Canadian industry has been producing steadily at

high levels, and steel production in the United States has recovered quickly from last summer's work stoppage.
Last month a new steel finishing mill came into production at Sault Ste. Marie which will give us an additional 250,000 tons of rolled steel products annually. In addition new facilities came into production this week at Hamilton which will add 650,000 tons of steel ingots a year to our present production. However, in spite of this increase in Canadian production the demand for steel is growing steadily, so we expect to maintain our level of imports from the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries.
It has been the policy during the past two years to control production and distribution of steel in order to make sure that direct defence needs were met first, but always with minimum disruption of normal commercial practices. With the prospect of improved supplies in 1953 the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) now feels justified in revoking, effective December 31 of this year, order SD-2 which prohibits less essential construction. Inventory limitations contained in order SD-1 will also be rescinded effective on the same date.
However, it will still be necessary to exercise control over steel distribution in order to ensure that defence requirements are met. Although we can look forward to continued improvement in general steel supplies during the coming months, it must be emphasized that some specific forms and types of steel probably will be in relatively short supply for some time to come, particularly steel plate and structural steel. Therefore the easing of steel restrictions in accordance with these announcements does not mean that ample supplies will be available immediately for all uses.
May I now turn to the production side of our defence program. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in this period of uncertainty our aim has been threefold; first, to produce the equipment needed to meet our international commitments and to defend our own country; second, to provide the productive facilities required to enable this country to swing into full-scale production should the need arise; and third, to build a strong economy that can supply the raw materials, the plant and equipment needed to sustain the Canadian economy in the event of an all-out war.
In addressing the house last spring the minister pointed out that, in the production of military equipment, the first year of the defence program was a period of preparation and organization, and that in the second year we would see actual deliveries and completed facilities. Although there are still another
The Address-Mr. Dickey four months to go in this fiscal year, production has definitely started to roll in all phases of the program. In some parts of the program most of the deliveries have been made. In others volume production is just getting under way. Where items are procured from regular commercial production it is comparatively easy to fill the requirements of the Department of National Defence. Where complicated military weapons of new design are produced, the story naturally is different.
A critical examination of the defence pro

duction program indicates that neither government nor industry fully appreciated the complexity of the job of producing to the exacting requirements of modern warfare, requirements which are not less difficult as specifications are constantly varied to take advantage of the newest technological advances. It is now necessary to guard against obsolescence even before production is under way. Canada has no monopoly on these problems. We know that they are showing up in the United States and the United Kingdom. They are no doubt harassing other countries including, we hope, the U.S.S.R.
Part of the problem is that we are working in entirely new fields and often with new materials. The use of jet propulsion in aircraft is something we had never tackled before. Here we have to produce an engine weighing over a ton that is capable of 8,000 revolutions per minute. In shipbuilding more aluminum is being used in place of wood and steel, and this requires the development of new skills and techniques. High stress factors in modern aircraft have necessitated the use of forged components in place of fabricated parts. High tensile castings introduce new and exacting metallurgical requirements. On the precision side we find that whereas during the last war we spoke of tolerances of a thousandth of an inch, today we talk of a ten-thousandth of an inch.
Despite these problems we are making good progress. We have already delivered intricate equipment in some volume to the three armed services. Before the end of this fiscal year there will be a sharp rise in deliveries. It is important to note that much of this production will be flowing from Canadian facilities that did not exist eighteen months ago. All hon. members are aware of the tremendous strides made by Canadian industry during the last war and of the capital expansion that * has taken place since that time. This broadening and diversification of our industrial base was invaluable when we started the present defence program. However, because of recent developments in modern armament design, and because we wanted to make more parts and components
582	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dickey in this country, we found that we needed new facilities and new skills to carry out this job. In some cases industry has been able to do this without government assistance. In other cases accelerated depreciation has been granted to take care of some of the risk involved, or we have stepped in and supplied, on the basis of government ownership, the plant or machine tools required.
The establishment of these facilities is a major part of our defence production program. There has been careful examination of the fields in which, for economic or strategic reasons, production in Canada was warranted, and we have then taken steps to ensure that facilities were established not only to meet current requirements but also to take care of accelerated production in an all-out effort.
This evening I want to mention some of these new facilities that are actually in production. The major part of this development has been in the aircraft industry. Two years ago the government purchased a site at Malton and entered into a contract with A. V. Roe for the design and construction of a crown-owned jet engine plant. This plant has now been built. The tools and equipment were obtained partly from the original A. V. Roe plant where the first Orendas were made, but mainly from a variety of sources in stiff competition with aircraft manufacturers of other countries. Much of the equipment had to be specially designed to meet new manufacturing techniques. Not only will this plant meet our immediate requirements, but it is capable of making a valuable contribution to meet expanded production needs. Orenda engines in substantial numbers are now coming off the production line, not only to power the CF-100 but also for the F-86 Sabre, which will greatly improve the performance of that aircraft.
We are now making more of the parts and *components for airframes and aero engines than at any time in our history. We have set up a plant that is producing fuel systems for the Orenda, while another is making combustion chambers. We now have plants that are manufacturing blades for jet engines. These blades, which are like small wings, must be forged, machined and finally ground to a tolerance of two-thousandths of an inch. A new Canadian plant is now producing, from a special heat-resisting alloy, castings and rings to be used in the hot end of a jet engine where temperatures reach 1,300 degrees fahrenheit. There were some people who thought we would be unable to produce in Canada the magnesium casting needed for


the jet program. These castings are now being turned out in quantity.
The high speeds attainable in jet aircraft have increased the stresses on the airframe and this, together with greater military loads, has increased the weight. To get the highest possible efficiency we have had to go to great lengths to produce refined structures. In the F-86 Sabre the main wing skin is formed from a sheet three-eighths of an inch thick, and we now have equipment in Canada which can machine this sheet in such a way that it tapers in thickness from five-sixteenths to one-sixteenth of an inch over the fifteen feet of its length. This operation is controlled to within three-thousandths of an inch.
We now have other plants that are producing undercarriage components, gear boxes, radomes, propellers, flexible hose assemblies, and filters. All this adds up to a much greater degree of self-sufficiency in our Canadian aircraft industry.
In the shipbuilding field, facilities have been set up to produce gears and naval auxiliary equipment. A new naval turbine plant, as modern as any of its type in the world, is now making complete sets of propulsion machinery for our escort vessels.
In guns and ammunition, most of the developments have been within the various divisions of Canadian Arsenals Limited. As most hon. members know, most of these divisions were kept in a stand-by condition after the second world war. In reactivating these plants we rehabilitated some of the machinery in storage and augmented this with new machine tools where necessary.
Our capacity to produce explosives has been steadily expanding. The de Salaberry plant at Valleyfield has been completely rehabilitated and put into operation by Defence Industries (1951) Limited, a subsidiary of Canadian Industries Limited. About two months ago, as was announced by the minister, Canadian Arsenals took over that plant as a producing unit.
These are some of the new facilities that have been created in the last two years. In some instances it has meant breaking sod and building and equipping new plants. In other cases it has meant the installation of additional machine tools in plants already in production. Since the department was set up in April, 1951, the department has ordered some 4,000 machine tools valued at approximately $35 million. Despite the long lead time on deliveries, over 2,700 of these machines had been installed in Canadian plants by October of this year. This was in addition to the rehabilitated crown-owned tools held in storage since the last war and now allocated to defence industries.

These facilities, now in production, are not only the basis of our preparedness effort but they also form the nucleus of an all-out effort if war is forced upon us. Of equal importance, those facilities will, if international conditions permit, make an important contribution to our over-all economy.
I have been speaking of two aspects of the defence program-the production of weapons and equipment to meet our current needs and the building up of facilities as insurance against an all-out emergency. To keep the over-all program in perspective, I would like to deal briefly with a third part of the program which I mentioned earlier-the importance of a strong economy and a broad industrial base as a defence against possible aggression in the future.
In the last few years we have achieved record levels of production, income and employment. What is particularly significant from a defence standpoint is the economic expansion that has taken place in those segments of the Canadian economy that would bear the brunt of full mobilization. Over-all capital investment has been maintained at a very high rate in very recent years but, since Korea, there has been a definite change in its composition. To meet the demands of defence, we have seen a marked increase in the expansion of basic industrial capacity and a corresponding shift away from investment in consumer goods and services. This means that we are now able to manufacture more iron and steel products; to make more electrical apparatus; and to produce a wider variety of chemical products than we ever could before. We have, at the same time, been building up our power potential and expanding along other lines that would provide the necessary base for large-scale military production.
In the field of international co-operation there has been continued progress in strengthening the defences of the free world. In our relationship with the United States a number of steps have been taken to enable our two countries to co-operate more fully in our joint defence effort. Last February we signed an agreement which simplifies and co-ordinates procedures on defence contracts, and provides a more satisfactory basis on which our two governments can do business. Another agreement on security makes it possible for Canada and the United States to exchange information pertaining to defence production with a minimum of delay and red tape.
The Address-Mr. Dickey
The most effective use of the resources of both Canada and the United States is essential to the success of the defence effort. Several months ago, when Canadian orders in the United States were about twice as high as those placed in this country, the minister pointed out that there would be an increase in United States orders and a levelling off in Canadian purchases. This is now taking place. There has been a very marked increase in United States contracts placed in this country. In the 1951-52 United States fiscal year, they totalled more than $325 million. During the same period, Canadian orders amounted to about $279 million. As our own facilities have come into production it has been possible to ease up on the heavy initial purchases that had to be made in the United States to get our defence program under way.
On the other hand, our defence purchases in the United Kingdom are increasing. In the fiscal year 1950-51, Canadian government defence orders placed in the United Kingdom amounted to $8 million. In the fiscal year 1951-52 they were about $38 million. In the first seven months of this fiscal year, orders placed are worth about $55 million.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to prolong this statement. Summarizing briefly, the strategic materials situation is improving and we are taking advantage of this circumstance to relax controls as quickly as the requirements of the defence effort permit. Significant quantities of complicated equipment are now being made available to the armed services, and deliveries will increase sharply before the end of the fiscal year. An impressive framework of new facilities has been established in the last two years and forms the real basis of our defence effort. Finally, the Canadian economy is being maintained at a record level, providing us not only with a strong bulwark against communism but also providing our fellow Canadians with the highest standard of living in our history.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, when speaking in this house on November 24 last the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said he did not believe that the people of Canada had been overtaxed. Now I want to say to the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people whom I have the honour to represent, that they believe that they have been overtaxed, very materially and for quite a long time.
They know that ever since the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) took office in December, 1946, the government has taken from the Canadian people more than a million dollars a day in excess of what was needed

The Address-Mr. Hees to meet all government expenses. This means that during the past six years the average Canadian family of five has been overtaxed by more than $750.
The heads of families in my riding feel that $750 is a lot of money, and they can think of a great many ways they would have sooner spent that $750 than handing it over to the government. They particularly resent handing over that $750 because they know it was not needed to pay for any expenses the government-


Mr. Cannon:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to answer the hon. member's question after I finish speaking. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding particularly resent having to hand over that $750 because they know it was not needed to pay for any expenses the government was called upon to meet. They can see no reason for having to hand it over to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).
During wartime, one of the greatest dangers we have to fear is sabotage. During peacetime, it seems that one of the greatest dangers we have to fear is "Abbottage".


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that supposed to be funny?


George Harris Hees: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to speak for a few moments about the forced retirement of Brigadier A. B. Connelly, the brilliant young officer who was fired to make a scapegoat for this government's fiasco in dealing with the Koje island incident. I happened to be a classmate of Brigadier Connelly's for four years at the Koyal Military College, between 1927 and 1931. During four years such as that, you get to know a great deal about a man's character and ability. I believe that all those who were associated with Brigadier Connelly at that time were convinced that he was one of the brightest, cleverest, ablest cadets that ever came out of that institution. As the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) pointed out the other day, since his graduation his whole career has been one of rapid promotion to some of the highest jobs in the army.
I have known very well a great many of the men who, right up until the time he was fired, were associated with Brigadier Connelly in his work. I also know a great many of the men who have worked for him. They are all of the opinion that he would have risen to the very top of the tree.
What was the great mistake that Brigadier Connelly is supposed to have made? It is simply that he reported as a routine matter, instead of by high priority cable, the fact that one company of infantry from our 25th brigade was under consideration for guard


duty on Koje island. I believe that any soldier would have acted in exactly the same manner as Brigadier Connelly acted, because to soldiers the use of one company for temporary guard duty is a routine matter, and not a matter requiring high government decision.
If all our senior officers are going to have to know how to solve the eccentricities of the Liberal political mind in the future, there is no doubt about it that they are all going to require a very special course in this very inexact subject. I believe it is putting far too heavy a responsibility on men whose job it is to direct our fighting forces in the field.
I want now to deal very briefly with another matter that the hon. member for Nanaimo brought up when speaking in this house on December 1. He referred to the fact that in future the time spent at educational institutions would be considered as service time when working out pensions for commissioned officers in our armed forces. As he pointed out, that is a very just and desirable provision. I believe it is also necessary that officers who have already been commissioned should also be able to count the time spent at educational institutions as service time when computing the pension which they will receive. I believe this is a very necessary provision which the government should consider. I sincerely hope that in the near future the government will extend the present regulation to make that possible.
(Translation):


Mr. J. E. Lefrangois (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, although I came to the house in the fall of 1949, I am speaking for the first time tonight. The task entrusted to me by my electors is crystal clear: they have sent me here to support the government. I might add that the decision of the electors of Laurier was practically unanimous, because the Progressive Conservative party, aware of the people's wishes, did not contest the riding. The C.C.F. party followed suit. My only opponent was a member of the Labour-Progressive party who polled only a few hundred votes and he succeeded in doing so only by omitting, as much as possible, to mention the name of his party in the constituency.
I am confident of having fulfilled my mandate without having to interfere with the government's policy, the trend of which has not changed since 1949.
In 1949, the electors of the constituency of Laurier, like those in all parts of Canada, expressed their confidence in the Liberal party because it has worked towards a united, a sovereign and prosperous Canada, whose citizens were already enjoying a high degree of security.

In 1949-need I recall an event so vividly remembered by our people, so burning a memory for our opponents-Canadians from coast to coast chose the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent as head of the nation.
This choice was not to be regretted. Under the Liberal regime, Canada has constantly strengthened her unity, her sovereignty, her prosperity and the security of her people. Incidentally, the Conservatives, who, since the last election in the United States, take pleasure in identifying themselves with the Republicans-thus labouring under quite a delusion -should remember that all the largest magazines and newspapers in that country who supported the Republican party have, especially during the past year, praised the financial and economic development of Canada as well as her increasing prosperity. Several of them have even expressed the wish that their country be governed by men like those who make up the present government.
During the electoral campaign of 1949 our opponents, indulging in some wishful thinking, had predicted that the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent would resign immediately following the election.
To the satisfaction of my constituents, as well as of the whole country, and to their good fortune, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent is still the leader of the Liberal party and of the government. For all, he remains the man of the whole nation. It is not mere gallantry to point out too that the first lady of this country is still today Mrs. Louis St. Laurent.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, the Hon. Ernest Bertrand who, for fourteen years, so fittingly represented the constituency of Montreal Laurier. His constituents were honoured with his cabinet appointment, he having been originally Minister of Fisheries and latterly Postmaster General. The electors of Montreal Laurier think of him with gratitude and their admiration for his career remains undimmed in spite of his present removal from the public scene due to his appointment to the bench.
The support given to the government by my constituency is as assured today as it was in 1949; and it is equally strong in all parishes. Hence I did not have to voice any protest when it was substantially modified during the last redistribution.
I have but one regret, and it is to be deprived of a considerable portion of the people who placed confidence in me on my first election, as well as of organizers and devoted friends who never spared me their support. In losing these, however, I have the good fortune of acquiring new friends for 68108-38
The Address-Mr. Lefrangois the limits of my constituency will henceforward include a great part of St. Jean Baptiste parish where I have always been warmly welcomed.
With the general elections coming, our opponents fill the air with their election-inspired statements. Hence, so much talk about health insurance.
It is not surprising that our socialists are sponsoring a new social security program; they would like it so very much if all our citizens were to depend on a state which they expect to run some day. Yet if they succeeded in nationalizing everything, in accordance with their policy, the plight of this country would be such that each citizen would have to rely on the state for his daily bread.
However, when we see the Tories, who, as a matter of principle, have always opposed social security measures, we must come to the conclusion that they are tired of being in opposition and that they have decided to abandon their principles and forget their past in an effort to assume power.
In requesting the implementation of a health insurance scheme, our opponents are merely showing their approval for legislation which the Liberal government will bring down in due course.
On the other hand it is noteworthy that any sound proposals which could be found in our opponents' platforms at any given time have sooner or later been put into effect by the Liberals.
In my opinion, before embarking on a health insurance scheme, we must first expand and increase our hospital facilities, sanatoriums and other medical institutions.
Before permitting a larger number of people to enter those institutions, we must provide the required accommodation and increase the necessary facilities.
Before calling the ambulance, one must ascertain that a bed is available in the hospital.
Therefore, it is a sound policy of the government to implement its health plan step by step.
Besides the sick there are the disabled. A sick man might be deprived for a few days, a few weeks or a few months of the income necessary to support himself and the members of his family. The disabled, on the contrary, might be deprived of these means for the rest of their lives. The sick person has to face considerable expenses for various lengths of time. The crippled would probably have to incur during their lifetime expenses resulting from their infirmities.

The Address-Mr. Lefrangois
Remarkable work is now being done in Canada towards the rehabilitation of the disabled, especially among the veterans. Amazing results are being achieved.
However a large proportion of crippled people will never be in a position to rehabilitate themselves. A few years ago the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) suggested the implementation of a special allowance plan in their favour. While congratulating him for having thus focused the government's attention on their plight, may I, in turn, express the wish that, when the time has come to set up a national health insurance plan, some consideration will also be given to invalids.
We already have pensions for the blind. Still there are any number of other ailments which beset a large number of our citizens. Crippled in body, they barely manage to exist while their dependents remain in miserable circumstances.
If there is one case where private charity is unequal to the task, that is it. I am convinced that the whole nation would enthusiastically approve of the adoption of a plan calling for allowances for crippled persons.
I am also satisfied that my party, which has so rapidly brought up the standard of living of the people of this country, will see to it that our crippled citizens are assured of that measure of comfort and security to which everyone is entitled in a truly civilized country.
Before closing these remarks, I should like to congratulate both the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have expressed the opinion and feelings of the great majority of Canadians.
It is with great pleasure that I listened to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, whom I learned to know and appreciate during the course of his electoral campaign. The house has had occasion to realize the fluency with which he can express himself in both languages.
In closing my remarks, I should like to express the hope that the government, after having gratified us with such a perfect loudspeaker system, will favour us with a system of simultaneous translation which would allow everyone to hear all the speeches in his own language, regardless of the one used by the speaker. I am convinced that such an innovation would make for better understanding between all members of the house.

(Text):


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken on this amendment to the amendment I wish to say a few words-and I assure the house that I will not detain it long-to explain why the C.C.F. group can and will vote for this subamendment. I wish to read the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) yesterday afternoon. It reads:
That the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
" (f) To bring before this house for adoption, a realistic financial and economic policy that will ensure the orderly development of Canada's resources, guarantee adequate markets at remunerative prices to producers, and provide to every Canadian his just share of the wealth our resources can be made to yield."
If I could have had the time to do so, Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to read part of the speech made by the hon. member for Lethbridge this afternoon. That speech was full of meat so far as I was concerned, but I am afraid not for the reasons that the hon. member for Lethbridge would think. In regard to the hon. member himself, we have been neighbours here for quite a long time, and he is a good neighbour; but I wish he could do what the poet Burns suggested would be a good thing for people to do, that is: "O wad some power the gif tie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" I think it would do him good, because if I know anyone who can make himself ridiculous in this house, it is the hon. member for Lethbridge. I am sorry the hon. member is not here now, but When he gets on his favourite subject he does not seem to have any sense of proportion and he does not give the rest of us credit for having any sense at all.
I may be just as stupid as he says I am-[DOT] and really I am not worrying about it very much; I am getting too old for that-but if I were as much at sea on economic matters as the hon. member for Lethbridge is, I certainly would worry.
I said that the C.C.F. would vote for this subamendment and why. As a matter of fact, I believe we are the only party in this house that can logically and conscientiously vote for this subamendment. I do not believe that even the Social Credit members can vote logically or conscientiously for it because if they vote for it they must repudiate entirely what was said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) only two or three days ago. Let me read what he said. I read it on Tuesday when I spoke in this debate, and I shall read it again. It is found at page 236

of Hansard. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked this question:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you do away with welfare legislation? . . .


Ernest George Hansell: I would like to answer the hon. gentleman's question if I may. It has always been found that you cannot readily retract or undo something the country has already done.
What does that mean? It means that he would like to do away, as quickly as it possibly can be done, with our social legislation. He would like to remove from the statute books of Canada all the social legislation that is on them. I continue with the quotation:
-but I would say that the greatest welfare that can come to the people is to leave with them their absolute freedom to act according to their own conscience and will.
Well, if you are going to leave them to their absolute freedom to act according to their own consciences, why bring in a financial and economic policy that will ensure the orderly development of Canada's resources? Why bring in a financial and economic policy that will guarantee adequate markets at remunerative prices to producers, and why bring in a financial and economic policy that will provide to every Canadian his just share of the wealth our resources can be made to yield? All the things they are asking for in this subamendment require planning, planning on a large scale. Who is to say what each individual's just share is? Is that to be left to a matter of chance? And if it is left to a matter of chance, what chance has the weak to get his share in competition with the strong? Did anyone ever hear of anything quite so fantastic or statements so much at variance with each other as the statement made by the hon. member for Macleod on December 1 and the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge on December 10?
You know, these Social Credit people are getting away with an awful lot. On the one hand they claim that they are for free enterprise and that nobody else is. In British Columbia they are the only free enterprise party. The Liberals are socialists with the C.C.F. I do not know what the Conservatives are, or what is left of them that have not gone into the Social Credit party.


Mr. Sinclair:: Very few of them.


Angus MacInnis: But th^y are not free enterprisers anyway. The Social Crediters are the only free enterprisers. According to the hon. member for Macleod their policy is to furnish the money, as much as everybody needs, and God will look after the rest.


Mr. Laing:: And all will be well.


Angus MacInnis: It is no wonder they start meetings with "Oh God, our help in ages 68108-381
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis past," because we should certainly need His help in years to come if that kind of policy were to be followed.
I have made a study of social credit, at least what goes for social credit. I do not believe there is any such thing-and that is not adopting the attitude of the person who saw the giraffe for the first time. I actually do not believe there is any such thing.


Mr. Shaw:: Do you believe it?


Angus MacInnis: No, I do not.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Why did you second the motion in 1935 calling for its use in 1935?


Angus MacInnis: I do not believe there is any such thing.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I put it on the record three years ago.


Angus MacInnis: That is all right. You can put it on the record again, if you like. Even if I did that in 1935, I would not take the same position as my hon. friends have taken, that they have not learned anything since 1935. As I said, I have read everything in book form that Major Douglas ever wrote. I have read not only that, but I have read what a great many other economists wrote, and I have come to my own conclusions in regard to the impasse that our economic system comes to every once in a while. I am quite satisfied that our economic dislocations are not because there is not sufficient money to distribute the goods produced. I have said time and time again in this house, and I will say it again tonight, that the reason is that although there is sufficient money, some have more money than they can spend and others have not the money to spend that they need. Because of that goods accumulate and cannot be sold. I do not expect everyone to believe that. Even if you do not, I do not believe that you are quite stupid.
The purpose of the present economic system is not to produce goods and services to meet social needs. The purpose of the present economic system is to produce goods and services to make a profit for the owners of the capital involved, and if it serves social needs in doing that it is only incidental. Profit is the purpose, and all else is incidental. I will say this: Until my friends, my neighbours to my left, can learn that they will not understand the economic system.


Solon Earl Low: You cannot learn something that is untrue.


Angus MacInnis: You have learned an awful lot that is untrue. An editorial appeared in

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis the Ottawa Journal of December 4, commenting on President-elect Eisenhower's business cabinet. It is headed: "Challenge to Business".
Business leaders have long argued that what government needed was more business know-how, meaning more businessmen. They must be delighted with General Eisenhower's appointments to his cabinet and other high posts. Not for a generation or more has an American administration contained so many men of business fame.
Thus the head of General Motors becomes secretary of defence, a key figure in the coal and steel industry becomes secretary of the treasury, a leader in the competitive field of automotive sales becomes postmaster-general, the head of the second biggest American bank goes to Britain as ambassador, and so on down the line.
The sun of the "economists", of the doctrinaire theorists, and even of the "practical" politicians, seems to have set.
I will be more certain that it has set when we have peace in Korea, when the cold war comes to an end, provided always that a shooting war has not begun. If Eisenhower can do better than Hoover and Coolidge, I shall eat my shirt. Perhaps I should not say "my shirt," because I recently got a plate and it would be pretty hard chewing, but I will be ready to eat something pretty tough. The Journal goes on:
For business, a stern challenge. The challenge of proving that business today is more than organized selfishness-
Which means that business yesterday or in Hoover's time was organized selfishness.
As a matter of fact, if business is not organized selfishness today, that is not due to business; it is due to the trade unions and the socialist movement. They have civilized business. The editorial continues:
-that free capitalism is more than freedom to exploit-
That means that free capitalism was merely freedom to exploit.
-that business leaders now are a far cry from their *"the-public-be-damned" predecessors, the "robber barons" who amassed vast fortunes through antisocial deeds and then added to their scandal by exhibitions of vulgar wealth.
There you have the picture of the businessman as he was before he was civilized by present-day events and trends. They would be no better today and they would not be any better tomorrow if these checks were removed because, as I said before, their purpose is not to provide goods and services, to feed, clothe and shelter the people, to provide those other things which are necessary for the human family. Their purpose is to make profits by the exploitation of our means of production. That cannot be remedied by the appointment of a monetary commission, although it might be a help.
I want to draw attention to the fact that the hon. member for Lethbridge said that 

they would appoint a monetary commission. What would be the purpose of that monetary commission. I remember when they-I was going to say "raised hell" but that would not be parliamentary-raised Cain with this group for advocating the appointment of a planning commission. What is the difference between a monetary commission and a planning commission? I do not know.
Let us see what this monetary commission is going to do. It is going to plan the introduction and operation of a financial and economic policy that will ensure the orderly development of Canada's resources. Quite a job. It is going to plan a financial and economic policy that will guarantee adequate markets at remunerative prices to producers. It is going to plan financial and economic policies that will provide to every Canadian his just share of the wealth our resources can be made to yield.
There is a free enterprise party for you. I am not so sure that when big business learn what they actually are they will be as flush with their money for campaign funds as they are at the present time and have been in the recent past.
The hon. member for Lethbridge referred today to a "just" price. As I mentioned the other day, I have been trying to get an answer to what is a just price for a long time. I have wanted to have that from any Social Credit member who wished to give it to me, but as yet none has done it. Perhaps the hon. member for Lethbridge has come nearer to it than anyone else.
This monetary commission is going to set the price on everything. Hon. members know what is meant by "everything". That will be your shirt, your hat, your coat, your shoes, the cabbage, liver and other things you eat, the mousetraps and all the things you buy. A just price is going to be set on each item. If there is no just price there will be profiteering with an unjust price.
Some years ago I raised this matter with the hon. member for Lethbridge. He spoke on June 21, 1948. The speeches he made yesterday and today were simply repetitions of the speech he has made in this house a dozen times. There may be a few new things in it, but I know it pretty nearly by heart. I know that Bradburys are going to be mentioned, and I know just where Sir Basil Blackett is going to come in, and all the rest of it.
It reminds me of the time I worked for a farmer. There used to be family worship in the mornings. While the farmer was reading the Bible and making his prayer I had to watch that the cows did not get into the clover. At about the same place in the middle
58?

of the prayer each morning he would look out the window and say, "Angus, go and turn them cows." I could repeat that prayer by heart just as I can repeat the speech of the hon. member for Lethbridge. During the course of his speech on June 21, 1948, the hon. member for Lethbridge said, as reported on page 5605 of Hansard:
I prefer to say "individual enterprise" rather than "free enterprise''-
I heard a Social Credit speaker in Vancouver say they had "individual enterprise" in Alberta. Yes, individual enterprise a la Imperial Oil. The hon. member continued:
-because free enterprise suggests that enterprise is free to do whatever it likes, create monopolies and charge what it likes. Social Credit does not favour that sort of thing at all. Social Credit says that if you take individual enterprise, with the wonderful motivation that is in it naturally, set it to work producing goods, and regulate that enterprise by the social credit just price system, which allows for a fair profit, allows enterprise to recover its costs plus a fair profit, you will have a powerful engine, harnessed and controlled as a powerful horse might be, so that it can go ahead and produce abundantly without being able to destroy itself or others. There you have the concept of Social Credit.
Page H. R. MacMillan. As I said, I really would like to have had the time to read the rest of what the hon. member for Lethbridge said today.


Solon Earl Low: I thought you said you knew it by heart.


Angus MacInnis: I know it by heart; but just like Mr. Speaker when he gets a copy of the speech from the throne so he will make no mistakes, I should like to have a copy of the hon. member's speech so I will make no mistakes and will not be called to order for putting an "and" or a "the" in the wrong place.
We can support this amendment, but I am surprised that the Social Credit party not only introduced it but will vote for it, because it is certainly not the policy they are preaching in British Columbia.
(Translation):


Mr. J. H. Rousseau (Rimouski):: When I made my maiden speech last year, I spoke in French and I gave my reason for doing so: namely that I was availing myself of the privilege of every new member to make his maiden speech in his mother tongue.
I shall speak in French again this year and here is the reason why. My native parish, where I have lived for the past 75 years, has been for 20 years, I may say without boasting,
The Address-Mr. Rousseau a small Canada and I could add: the capital, the seat, the centre of good will. I therefore deem it my duty to speak in French, a language that most hon. members of this house, although of other nationalities, understand and wish to speak. Indeed, whenever I meet some of my English-speaking colleagues, in the halls or elsewhere, they always ask me with their best smile: How are you, Mr. Rousseau? We're having a nice day today; the snow is all gone."
And members of this house are not the 'only ones who wish to speak French. Everyone knows that our distinguished former governor general, Lord Alexander, took French lessons, several times a week, from a French nun on Sussex street. When he read the French version of the speech from the throne, his pronunciation was nearly perfect, I would say. Before boarding his ship for England, at Halifax, where he made his farewell speech to the people with whose activities he had made a point to acquaint himself during his frequent trips throughout the country, people he loved so much, naturally he first spoke in his mother tongue but the part of his speech delivered in French showed in the tone of his voice his esteem for the French-Canadian people, and this was noted by all of his Frenchspeaking listeners.
We are greatly honoured, as you all know, in having a Canadian-born governor general. This remarkable achievement, unique in our history, is to the credit of the party which is leading our country so well and adds a glorious page to the golden book of Canada.
Like his distinguished predecessor, His Excellency the Governor General, Mr. Vincent Massey, to get acquainted with the hon. members of the Senate and the House of Commons, invited them in small groups to his residence for an informal chat.
During that visit, as I shook hands with him, I said: "Your Honour, am I going to speak French or English with you?" I beg you to note his answer: "As you wish." And during at least ten minutes, he spoke to me in French, asking me about my constituency, its people, its industries, and he even wanted to know why the town of Trois Pistoles bears that name. Naturally he asked me to explain some things about this summer school which seemed to produce such good results from the point of view of "bonne entente". His interest was all the greater since the school had been founded by one of his best friends, Dr. Sherwood Fox, former president of
590	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rousseau the University of Western Ontario, at London, Ontario. This school is a dream come true for this great Canadian who, since his younger days, had wished for the unity of the two great races in this country and who had come to the conclusion that to understand each other and get along together they first had to learn to talk to each other.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to tell you that last summer among the pupils' was a judge from the supreme court of Ontario, Hon. Mr. Justice Kelly, as well as the present president of the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Hall. I might add that the school is still ably conducted by Mr. H. E. Jenkin of London, who still discharges his duties in the fine spirit in which the establishment was founded, that is understanding and unity between the two great races who live in this country.
I should like also to mention the visit paid to that school, in August last, by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He spoke to the pupils for 45 minutes, with his intelligence, but especially with his heart, as ;a real father would do. While I was thanking him, the school director asked him if he would like to pick a song in the album of French songs, which he would have the pupils sing for him and he picked out "En roulant ma boule"; when he left the school, he said: I was much impressed, for this song was the one my mother used to sing to put me to sleep when I was a child. Wonderful reflection of a great man who, having attained the summit of honour, still recalled with emotion the days of his youth.
I also wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to offer you my sincere congratulations for the improvement in your French pronunciation, which is particularly noticeable when you say the opening prayers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I tell you why I shall vote enthusiastically for the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I should like to follow the path of all the gentlemen who have spoken in this house after the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address.
Making a half-turn to the right, I find myself facing two gentlemen who, at the very start, have been outstanding and who deserve the admiration of their constituents. I am very happy to join in the sincere congratulations which have been extended to them by all those who have taken part in this debate. I appreciate particularly the high praise paid to them by the Prime Minister, who is an expert appraiser of solid speeches, as well as of men and things.
I also take great pleasure in concurring in the congratulations extended to the new
fMr. Rousseau.]

Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Campney), this being a public confirmation of the congratulations I deemed it my duty to express to each of them in a personal letter.
Before proceeding any further, I would like, Mr. Speaker, to send cordial greetings to the photographers of the house; I mean by that expression the members of the press gallery. They photograph our ideas, our feelings, our speeches; they know how to condense a flow of words into its essentials, they know how to extract the salient facts from our speeches and how to express them in a pleasing manner for their readers; their task is very tiresome and requires a remarkable degree of observation. They deserve our congratulations and our thanks.
The clergy of Canada, and more particularly of the province of Quebec, rejoices on the occasion of the promotion of Archbishop Leger of Montreal to the rank of cardinal, with residence in the city of his metropolitan see.
For the first time in the history of our country, the city founded by Maisonneuve will have her own cardinal. The late Cardinal Villeneuve also came from Montreal, but when he received that high honour he was Archbishop of Quebec.
We offer our sincere congratulations to our colleagues from the city and diocese of Montreal on this great honour which has been reflected upon them. They have reason to be proud of having among them such an illustrious ecclesiastical figure. Everyone, irrespective of creed or nationality, respects and admires his saintliness, his unsurpassed oratory, his wise diplomacy and his great devotion to every noble and worthy cause.
For two years already I have had the honour of representing the interesting constituency of Rimouski.
In order to answer and meet the requests which have been addressed to me, I had the pleasure of visiting several departments and you may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I have always received, from the hon. ministers, their parliamentary assistants and their subordinates, the most sympathetic, the kindest and the most courteous attention. I may say that legitimate and reasonable requests which I submitted to them were met and when they were unable to grant what I was asking, the refusal was so polite, so gentlemanlike, that I had no reason to take offence; and so I make it a point to mention here all the kindness which has been bestowed on my electors.

In my maiden speech, last year, I expressed all the needs of my constituency, giving the location of every place in the county. Mont Joli, a pretty little town on the eastern boundary of my constituency, has had its viaduct slowly but surely improved.
Such an improvement had become necessary and imperative following the traffic increase in that district: the mining developments on the north shore and on the Gaspe peninsula have considerably increased the movement of passengers coming from the United States by plane and by rail, so that the airport there takes on new importance every day.
I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will turn a sympathetic ear to all fair and reasonable requests I will make to him in this regard. Mont Joli, being the terminus of the Matane railway, needs a larger and improved C.N.R. station. That need has been felt for a long time. The municipal council and the chamber of commerce have sent me resolutions asking for that improvement and I agree wholeheartedly with those resolutions.
Mont Joli also needs a customs office. At the present time, the reasons which militate in favour of the immediate opening of this office are most potent; I have enumerated and stressed them to the authorities concerned, and I am convinced that my request will be granted. It will be necessary also to open an unemployment insurance office at Trois Pistoles as well.
In each of the parishes along the river, important works were performed, and I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier).
The wharf at Pointe au Pere is also in need of improvement called for by the navigators, the parish council and, more particularly, by the pilots' guild1. In my humble opinion, these works are the responsibility of the Department of Public Works and of the Department of Transport. I am therefore convinced that the ministers at the head of those two important departments will co-operate and have performed as soon as possible the required works.
This year, Ste. Flavie and Ste. Luce were supposed to have retaining walls built, in order to stop the erosion caused by the spring tide; but the project has been postponed until next spring, the amount earmarked for the job having been used up.
At Rimouski, the burnt-down breakwater has been rebuilt; the supporting wall will be built as far as Cathedral street. A private company having decided to build a dry-
The Address-Mr. Rousseau dock opposite the town-it will be the only one east of Quebec city on the south shore- a breakwater will have to be erected to protect it. The plans have been prepared, at my request, by engineers from the Department of Public Works, and I firmly hope that it will soon be built.
My regretted and eminent predecessor had obtained the building of a post office at Rimouski. This beautiful building, one of the most remarkable and imposing east of Quebec city, was blessed and inaugurated in June last. I have now the pleasant task of thanking the Minister of Public Works for having given us this building. The Rimouski airport also needs improvements. I took great pleasure in escorting a large group of the town's leading citizens and in introducing them to the Minister of Transport who greeted us with his usual kindness and who promised to consider seriously their request.
I must also thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Langlois) and certain employees of their department for having so kindly consented to improve our postal service in some places.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state clearly why I shall enthusiastically support the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In my humble opinion, the Liberal government is administering the affairs of the country in about the same way as directors of large companies, who can boast every year of substantial surpluses, to meet the interest on privileged shares, to redeem those shares when they mature, to pay reasonable dividends on common shares and still have an adequate reserve for contingencies.
To accumulate such surpluses, the government must resort to customs and excise duties, and to taxes.
It is not fair to find fault with the government for having large surpluses, when we know very well that those surpluses are used first to write off our national debt, which has already been decreased by several billions, then to pay the cost of old age pensions, pensions to the blind, family allowances and especially to meet the high cost of our defence production.
We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that it took the experience of two wars, which cost us so much in money and human lives, to awaken the allies to the necessity of preparing themselves.
During the 1914-18 war, no one was ready but Emperor Wilhelm; so much so that his troops, meeting no serious obstacles, overran, with little trouble, first Belgium, then part of France. They were steadily advancing on Paris when the battle of the Marne
592	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rousseau was fought and won by the allies through providential assistance; it is said that the German generals made unexplainable mistakes in command. Some say, moreover, that the German armies were then blinded by an apparition of the holy Virgin who wanted to protect the eldest daughter of the church: this miracle was only a repetition of what happened when the cross and the words In hoc signo vinces, by this sign thou shall conquer, appeared in the sky to Emperor Constantine and his troops, during their battle against the pagans.
Thanks to the victory of the Marne, the allies were able to stave off the German advance, to take refuge in trenches, and to get ready, while defending themselves. That war cost millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of human lives.
Twenty years later, in 1939, Hitler launched world war II, with such thorough preparation that all hope seemed lost for the allies who, once again, were unprepared. It was the blitzkreig, with all its attendant horrors. Countries fell one after the other and everything seemed lost, especially after the Dunkirk disaster. Britain alone, disarmed but courageous, led by Churchill, decided to fight it out. At this critical period the United States had not yet joined in the fray, Italy had gone over to Hitler, while Russia had just signed a treaty with Germany.
It is well, then, that we pay tribute to Britain since, without this admirable decision on the part of Churchill and his people, the world would have been subject to the

nefarious nazi regime. It was a regime of terror, a godless regime. You will remember that this evil genius, to ridicule the cross of Christ, had forcibly replaced it with the swastika.
We all know how this war cost billions of dollars, millions of human lives and left nearly half the world in misery and disorder.
Here again, a year before the end of the war, a celestial apparition took place at Fatima, when the Virgin and her Son, in the presence of nearly 100,000 people of all faiths and creeds, appeared in the heavens.
When the holy Virgin appeared to three young children, three young shepherds, she recommended prayer .and penance. And, Mr. Speaker, all these extraordinary happenings are admitted the world over.
It is a mystery to no one that the dangers of war are still threatening, but this time, and due to the experience of the last two wars, .the allies are preparing themselves, and it is this danger which has determined all free countries to prepare. Such preparation is costly but necessary, for you know this axiom or rather this great truth: Heaven helps those who help themselves.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Rousseau the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 12, 1952