[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been called to an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 26, which reads in part as follows:	.
Speaking on June 21 at Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, Mr. F. W. Townley-Smith, C.C.F. member for North Battleford, criticized the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement at $1.55 and the guaranteed minimum price for all wheat of $1.35 per bushel. Mr. Townley-Smith was not opposed in principle but he argued that the price as fixed in the agreement and the five-year compulsory pool were too low.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member quote only the relevant part, and then state his question of privilege.


Mr. MacINNIS:: He did not get time to do it.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: I wish to state that I discussed the agreement but did not criticize it, and also that the last sentence, namely, that "Mr. Townley-Smith was not opposed in principle but he argued that the price as fixed in the agreement and the five-year compulsory pool were too low" is a misstatement because it is incomplete. What I really said was that if the prices of other things that farmers had to buy were to be allowed to skyrocket, then the price of wheat and wages should be allowed to go up with them. With this correction, the remainder of the Press Press editorial is quite pointless.


Mr. KNOWLES:: As usual.



MR. POULIOT-EDITORIAL IN MONTREAL &quot;DAILY . STAR&quot;-UNITED NATIONS

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege based upon the fundamental free-

dom of speech. As a member of parliament today I went before the human rights committee and drew the attention of hon. members to the following extract from an editorial published in the Montreal Daily Star of Wed1-nesday, June 25. It states:
Were the characters involved in this episode other than they were, this debate would assume national importance.
The debate was about the united nations organization, and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and I expressed honest views in the debate. Here is the commentary of the Montreal Daily Star:
It would be rightly interpreted as a resurgence of old-style isolationism-the kind of doctrine which above all else brought on what Mr. Churchill has called "the unnecessary War." It will be so interpreted in Moscow and elsewhere: for the students of public opinion in those parts can hardly be expected to know very much about the irresponsibility of Mr. Church, Mr. Pouliot and their strange allies from Alberta.
This morning I went before the committee for protection of freedom of speech. Perhaps there was a little exaggeration in my calling the owner and chief editor of the Montreal Daily Star a bum, but there was much less exaggeration in my language than in their description of the hon. member for Broadview and myself as irresponsible.
My contention is this, that the human, rights committee serves no more purpose than an umbrella made of only wire. Everything is gone out of it. I asked them for protection and I did not get it. I was referred to the house. I protest most strongly against the uselessness of that committee.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I have not seen the reference in the Montreal Star but I want to tell the hon. member for Temis-couata that I do not pay any attention to what that newspaper says. I found out years ago that there is no use trying to answer a newspaper; they always have the last word. As far as I am concerned I do not care what they say. My position can be explained in the house. I contend that there has been a flat failure of the UNO and I gave my reasons for it. This paper or its columnists never report what is said here in the house. President Roosevelt when 'attacked called some of them calumnyists.



PAUL TRIQUET, V.C. WINNERS OF VICTORIA CROSS FROM CONSTITUENCY OF RIMOUSKI

Mr. GLEASON BELZILE (Rimouski):: The Evening Citizen of July 3 states:	'
Canada's first French-speaking winner of the empire's most coveted award, the Victoria Cross,

Business oj the House
Lt.-Col. Paul Triquet, of Cabano, Que., has retired from the Canadian army after twenty-one years' service.
We are all very proud of Colonel Triquet, but I should like to have it on the record that we are also very proud of two other Victoria Cross winners who came from the constituency of Rimouski. They were Captain Jean Brillant and Corporal Joseph Kaeble, who won the Victoria Cross in 1918 and 1917.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Hon. members may have noticed that I have had placed on the Votes and Proceedings of yesiterday the notice of a motion for the house to sit in the mornings next week at eleven o'clock from Wednesday until the end of the week and on Saturdays thereafter. If I can be given unanimous consent, I would move the motion this afternoon so that hon. members will know at once just what to expect. Otherwise I will leave the motion over and move i't on Monday. May I ask the house if I have unanimous consent?


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I take it that the Prime Minister is obliged to get unanimous consent before he can move this motion today, and I take it that is his object in ,v'aking the request he has made. Perhaps the house ought to be brought up to date in connection with the ramifications of the whole matter of shortening the time of the session. At the opening of the house yesterday we heard that there were to be some negotiations with respect to Saturday sittings, and I was wondering whether that had been decided upon. I ask that because it w-ould have a direct bearing upon any move made with respect to morning sittings next week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to the previous discussions, there was an understanding that we would not meet tomorrow without considering the matter in advance to see if we could reach an agreement. There was no understanding with regard to future sittings. We have reached the point now where, in the light of the circumstances as we know them in connection with bringing the business of the house to a close, the government must itself take the initiative and responsibility. It is for that reason that I have had this motion inserted in Votes and Proceedings to cover the sittings of the house for the remainder of the session.
Hon. members perhaps may not realize that we have been sitting here since the month of January and we are now into July. .Neaf the
close of every session of parliament measures have to be taken to expedite the business. I would point out that not only is the convenience of hon. members of the house to be considered but, as they will have noticed, there is the position of members of the public service including the officials of this house. For six years past the civil servants at Ottawa have not had the opportunity of enjoying summer shorter hours. As long as this house continues to sit, members of the public service in Ottawa have to be on hand. They do not get a chance to enjoy the earlier hours of closing during the summer months they otherwise would have.
I am sure hon. members will be prepared to consider that aspect. There are the employees in the printing bureau, those connected with Hansard and others whom I might name, on whom there is great pressure at this time. I submit that that is something of which account might well be taken, particularly by those who are interested in seeing that as much consideration as possible is shown in as many directions as possible.
So far as the business of the house is concerned, if I thought that there was the slightest reason why we should not expedite matters at this stage, I would be the first not to permit any attempt at hastening the conclusion of the session. However, we know that all important measures have been brought forward. I have asked time and again that if there was an}' particular measure that hon. members wished to have brought forwardi, or if there were any items of the estimates hon. members wished to have brought forward, the government wTould have them brought forward at once. I have had no further requests, and I think that with the items that there are on the order paper, if we have, as I hope we shall have, the cooperation of hon. members generally, we should be able to bring the proceedings of this house to a close next week, and that before the end of the week.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this group has no objection to giving unanimous consent to having the motion put today in the terms in which it appears' in Votes and Proceedings, but there are one or two questions I should like to ask. Is it the intention of the government to go through with the labour bill? If it is, I doubt very much if that bill can be got out of committee in time to go through the house. Is it the intention of the government to go through with the bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act which appears in Votes and Proceedings? I would like to know how much we are supposed to get through next week. ' 1
Business of the House

I would remind the house that if we sit from eleven o'clock to one, from two o'clock to six and from seven o'clock to eleven we shall be sitting two hours longer each day than we ever did before, at least in my time in the house. That puts a burden on the staff, the printing bureau and others. If the Prime Minister could give us some information on the matters I have raised, we shall have some idea of what we have to do before we leave here a week from tomorrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government naturally has been concerned with the matters my hon. friend has raised. So far as the Dominion Elections Act is concerned, as the hon. member has mentioned, a number of amendments have been proposed. I do not think, after this session, that there will be a general election before there is another session of the house. For that reason the government has thought it would be preferable that hon. members should have an opportunity of studying these proposed changes to the elections act between this session and the next. Therefore we will not proceed with this measure at this time.
With regard to the labour bill, there are a great many who feel that we ought to get that measure through at once, but there are a very large number who are of the view that perhaps it would be the part of wisdom, in the light of what we know has happened in connection with legislation in some other parts of the world, particularly legislation affecting industrial questions, that it would place hon. members in a better position to deal with that most important question, if we allowed this measure to stand over until another session. Hon. members would then have an opportunity of carefully studying the statements made to and the evidence which has been given before the committee.
Those are the two measures my hon. friend has mentioned. I cannot say offhand whether there will be any others which will not be proceeded with, but I do know the government will seek to accommodate hon. members of the house as long as we are not hindering in any way the essential business of the country.
Mr. GR.AYDON: May I ask the Prime Minister if his remarks about the elections act would apply also to the redistribution bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is important,
I think, that the redistribution measure should be proceeded with at this session.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to say a word to
[Mr MacInnfe.J
impede greater progress in the house, but I am rather in a difficulty with regard to Wednesday next. Some of those associated with me have been endeavouring to arrange a public memorial service for the late Right Hon. Viscount Bennett, and overcoming a considerable number of difficulties we chose noon on Wednesday for that service at Chalmers church. My card has only just reached me, and it is possible that the Prime Minister's card has not yet reached him. But if he would give consideration to putting off the morning sittings from Wednesday to Thursday of next week it would be considered a very courteous thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say that naturally I would be the first to wish that as many members of this House of Commons as possible would be present at the memorial service to the late Lord Bennett. I hope very much to be present myself. I did not know at the time this motion was drafted that there was to be a special service at twelve o'clock on Wednesday. I wonder if the house would agree to meeting on Wednesday at ten o'clock and adjourning at eleven-thirty? If that amendment were made to the motion, perhaps that would meet the situation.


Grote Stirling: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on Wednesday, July 9 instant, the house shall meet at. 10 o'clock a.m., and on that day there shall be an additional intermission from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m.; that on and after Thursday, July 10 instant, until the end of the session the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the intermission at 6 o'clock p.m. there shall also be an intermission every day from one to two o'clock p.m., and that on Saturday the 12th July instant, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m., and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the special committee on radio broadcasting.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. Has the government. taken action on the recommendation in

Inquiries of the Ministry
the fourth report of the standing committee on public accounts that a commission be appointed to inquire into alleged loss of property by persons of the Japanese race, residents of Canada? If a commission has not been appointed will the minister say if it will be appointed, and when?


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: Consideration is being given to that, and arrangements are being made to secure a commissioner. The announcement I hope will be made shortly of the appointment of a commissioner to carry out the inquiry.



BRITISH EMPIRE CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I was handed just before coming into the house an Associated Press dispatch from Canberra, Australia, in which it is intimated that the suggestion has just been made in Australia's legislative body that all the British dominions should send their most senior representatives, preferably their prime ministers to a British empire conference for the purpose of "devising general strategy for winning the 1947 battle for Britain". I would ask the Prime Minister if Canada would be prepared to participate in such a conference and what his views are towards the suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to know what is meant by a conference in aid of winning the battle for Britain. I do not wish to commit myself to any view that there is a battle for Britain to be won at this stage. I believe that Britain is well able to look after her own troubles just now, without anticipating that there is going to be a battle that will require all the dominions to assist her. I would prefer to say nothing about the dispatch until I receive something official.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that it is the economic battle of Britain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what is meant.



HONG KONG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, in view of a recent press announcement in reference to the dedicating of a cemetery on the outskirts of Hong Kong, 33166-324
where the remains of some three hundred Canadian victims of the Hong Kong tragedy are said to be buried, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the names of thos'e soldiers are to be published, or are all available particulars to be forwarded to the next of kin?


Bon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, the cemetery for Canadian soldiers who died at Hong Kong was consecrated and a memorial sendee was held for them on the first of July, Dominion day, of this year. My understanding is that the names of all those buried there have been or under existing arrangements will be communicated to the next of kin. If that has not been done, I will see that it is done.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government of Canada and the government of Sweden have concluded an agreement for air services between the two countries. This agreement is similar in form to previous bilateral air transport agreements already concluded by Canada.
The agreement provides for an air line of each country to operate a return service originating in its own territory and terminating in or passing through the territory of the other country, and includes an exchange of third and fourth freedom traffic rights. The route to be operated by the designated air line of Sweden is from Stockholm via intermediate points to Montreal, and the route laid down for the designated air line of Canada is from Montreal via intermediate points to Stockholm. Since, however, Canada does not propose to operate an air service to Siveden in the near future, the agreement makes provision for subsequent review of the services to be performed by the air lines of the two countries at such time as Canada designates an air line to operate scheduled services between the two countries.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act by provid-
[Stage Direction]


Civil Service Superannuation Act
ing a new and extended definition of ciril servant and civil service; changing the age of retirement; amending the conditions upon which contributions may be made to the superannua* tion fund and benefits paid therefrom; and by a comprehensive addition to the act covering temporary employees in the service.
Mr. BOUCHER:: Is the minister going to make an explanation at this stage?


Mr. ABBOTT:: I will make an explanation when we are in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Civil Service Superannuation Act
annuity, payable at age sixty, and adjusted for the number of years of service as outlined above.	.
This very brief summary explains the principal new provisions relating to retirement or transfer from the service. The counterpart of these provisions is a section of the bill which is designed to encourage mobility into the service. It enables an employee who enters the civil service from an employment in which he was subject to a pension plan to count his period of employment in such "pensionable employment" as service for the purpose of the Superannuation Act, if his separation from such employment involves the loss of pension benefits under the said plan and if he elects to contribute twice the amount of the regular contributions with interest (in order to cover his own and the government's share). Such contributions in regard to past service so purchased are to be based on the contributor's salary immediately after his appointment to the service. Pensionable employment is defined as any employment designated by the treasury board as employment in respect of which there was an established superannuation or pension fund or plan.
This privilege has been extended to a limited extent in the past in the case of certain special groups such as provincial government employees transferred to the unemployment insurance commission or the Department of National Revenue. It is now proposed to give it the more general application outlined above, in order to facilitate the recruitment of persons who might make a valuable contribution to the public service but who are now debarred from entering it because of the heavy financial sacrifice they would have to make by giving up their pension rights in their present employment and their inability to secure immediate comparable protection in the service.
I come now to a series of amendments which extend the benefits at present enjoyed by war veterans.
Provision is being made to count the period of absence of a contributor who resigned to enlist or of an employee other than a contributor who resigned to enlist or was granted leave of absence to enlist, if he served on active service overseas-subject to payment of contributions on the basis of salary of the contributor or employee immediately prior to his enlistment. In the case of a contributor who resigned to enlist-that is, a permanent civil servant who resigned and got his contributions back-his service in the civil service may be counted on payment of his
[Mr Abbott.]
withdrawal allowance plus interest at 4 per cent from the date of payment to him to the date of his election to count such service.
This provision reopens the privilege of electing to count service in world war I to certain employees who were given the option of counting such service in 1940 pursuant to recommendations of the special parliamentary committee. A small number of eligible persons failed to take advantage of the opportunity at that time and they will be given another chance. In addition, employees who served in world war II will be given the opportunity to count their service in similar circumstances. The permanent civil servant, who was subject to retirement provisions at the time of his enlistment, may count his period of absence on active or full-time service with the forces during world war I or world war II without contribution, provided that in the case of world war I he was granted leave of absence. With these added provisions, all persons who were employed in the civil service immediately prior to enlistment may count their period of absence on war service, except those who were not contributors or resigned to enlist and did not serve overseas.
There is another new provision relating to war service. From time to time we have had representations that employees who served overseas and who have since entered the public service should be allowed to count war service although they were not employed in the public service prior to their enlistment. While these representations have been considered with a good deal of sympathy, it had to be recognized that to extend benefits to a comparatively small group of veterans through the superannuation account would hardly be fair to the great body of veterans entering other employment, to whom such benefits would not be available. As I mentioned earlier, we now propose to allow certain service in pensionable employment outside the civil service to count on payment of double contributions. While war service could not be categorized as this type of employment, we are nevertheless proposing that veterans who were not civil servants prior to enlistment be given a similar privilege. This, we believe, will meet the problem where the counting of such service is of some consequence in building up an adequate pension and is, at the same time, eminently fair to all veterans.
Another important provision of the bill is the continuance, on the basis established by order in council during the war, of contributions by temporary employees to the retirement fund. The problem of temporary employees

Supply-External Affairs
has received a great deal of careful consideration. At the moment the situation in regard to temporaries is abnormal and, although the matter is being dealt with as expeditiously as possible, it will be some time yet before the public service reaches a normal level in this respect. In the meantime, we consider it inadvisable to disturb the present plan which has worked very satisfactorily during the war and under which the employee contributes to the retirement fund and receives on retirement the amount of his contributions plus interest at four per cent.
There are a number of other amendments, including provision for a minimum return of contributions in all cases, the establishment of $15,000 as a maximum amount of salary countable for purposes of the act, and some minor changes required to give consonance to the act and to meet circumstances which have developed since the act was last amended in 1944.
In conclusion, I express the hope that the amendments I have outlined will commend themselves to the house. We believe that they are in accord with modern developments and progressive thinking in the field of personnel management and pension planning. We hope that some of the principles they now incorporate into our superannuation plan will be favoured by an increasing number of employers and that the Canadian worker will not be unduly restricted in his freedom of choice of employment by severe penalties involved in the loss of all accumulated pension benefits should he change his employment. We would like to see a more general acceptance of the principle that retirement provision is earned in respect of each period of employment.
I thought that on the resolution stage I would give this explanation of the general purposes of the bill, in the hope that the committee would allow the bill to be introduced and given first reading and be distributed to members so that they might study it over the week-end. Then, if it were the wish of the committee, we could have the main debate on the second reading.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave in introduce Bill No. 415, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Gordon Graydon: Is the bill ready for distribution?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Clerk says it is ready.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
1>1. Departmental administration, $1,534,144.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): In introducing these estimates of the Department of External Affairs I do not think it is necessary to say much to the house about the international situation generally. I will, of course, where appropriate, attempt to answer any questions which may arise out of these estimates and which concern that situation, but I think the general picture is sufficiently clear to those who read to make any public explanatory comment almost superfluous.	.
Though we must admit that picture is not a cheerful one, I am sure we all feel that there is no reason to become panicky. On the other hand, of course, it would be folly to ignore the fact that there are difficulties ahead and that those difficulties might possibly develop into serious dangers. To assume a complacent attitude is certainly not warranted by the facts. Realism is the best foundation for national and international policies, and a realistic analysis of the situation at the present time cannot be said to give much cause for too great optimism.
What might, I think, become a serious danger to the peace of the world is its division, both politically and ideologically, into two great groupings. Somehow, methods which can make possible peaceful cooperation, political and economic, between those opposing groups, must be found. The sources of fear and suspicion between them must be removed. It must be the first objective of every country's foreign policy to avoid, or do what it can to heal, these tragic divisions. No government of men of good will can accept the irrevocability of any development of this kind. No government, least of all the Canadian government, can accept the view that there is any fundamental hostility or division between the common peoples of the several nations. Such hostility or division, however, in this age of mass propaganda, can easily be created by ruling groups whose authority rests on the power they exercise rather than on the freely expressed will of their peoples. If somehow we can break through the fog of ignorance and misrepresentation which seems to surround certain peoples, international affairs will be conducted in a much more sincere and amicable fashion. No fog of this kind obscures the vision or judgment of our own people, because our way of life and rule is democratic and
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
popular, not only in words but in reality. We are conscious of the will and aspirations of the people of our nation and we act accordingly.
Another source of our strength is the fundamental unity of our people, and of all parties in this house, on these matters of international consequence and on the principles of peaceful cooperation which must govern our relation with other states. These are times when one oannot help but feel that other principles-the creation of discontents and enmities, the emphasis on the influences which divide rather than on those which unite men-unfortunately prevail in some other quarters. It had been hoped, and indeed it is still hoped, at least as far as I am concerned, that the united nations can be the agency to counteract these dividing forces, that it can act as an organization of civilized states within which universal and friendly cooperation will become possible and should be realized. It is because it still thinks that this can- be done that the Canadian government feels that the growth and strengthening of. the united nations must be a real cornerstone of Canada's policy in foreign affairs. It would be folly to disparage the organization merely because it has not, in its short history, already accomplished all that we hoped for from it. The weaknesses which have been displayed make it all the more necessary that support for it be strong and steadfast with a view to removing those weaknesses At the same time we must not complacently allow any one state or group of states to use the united nations for their own selfish national or propagandist purposes. It must be a form for the expression of the collective will of all peoples and not a sounding board for false and misleading propaganda.
Within the united nations there is room, of course, for closer associations not inconsistent at all with the ideals of the world organization. One such association which day by day and every day proves its enduring value is our commonwealth of free British nations, which during the last few months has in recent developments again shown the genius of the British people for adaptability and political wisdom.
Within the united nations there is room also for the closest and most friendly cooperation between Canada and the United States. That cooperation has been strengthened during the year, and one reason for its strength is that it respects the sovereign independence of the parties to it. The United States, of course, is a great country; Canada is a much smaller one. But the relations between the two are

based not only upon frienship but upon scrupulous respect for each other's rights. The intimacy and friendliness of this cooperation bears no threat to any other nation. We would hope that our collaboration, for instance in the north, could be extended to include other interested powers. On our part there is no reason why this should not be done. We seek the closest and friendliest contacts with all northern powers so that the development of that great area of the world may be for the welfare and progress of all peoples, and that it take place without the kindling of national envies or national fears. Also our association with other nations of the western hemisphere is growing in friendship and mutual value. The development of our diplomatic contacts in Latin America are one reflection of that growth.
I do not think it is necessary to make any more general observations. I think all hon. members will -agree when I say that the foundation of our international policy must be hostility toward none, and peace and friendship with all. That, of course, is not a foreign policy in itself; but it is a statement of the principles upon which foreign policy must be based in order that peace may be maintained.
It certainly is no exaggeration to say that should there ever be another war, what we have experienced in the past in the application of human ingenuity for purposes of destruction will be merely child's play to what this unhappy planet would be subjected to in the future.
As to the activities of the department during the calendar year 1946, they were in broad outline stated in the report of the department for that year which I tabled some time ago. two matters of major concern in the department during the past six months have been, precisely, the united nations and the European peace settlement. I mention the two subjects together purposely, because it has become increasingly clear that the future of the world organization upon which we embarked when the Prime Minister signed the charter of the united nations at San Francisco two years ago will succeed only if political and economic reconstruction of the world is achieved sufficiently speedily and according to some coherent pattern.
We have therefore directed our attention closely to the European peace settlement. The government has recently secured from parliament approval of the treaties prepared with four of the satellite states, and in due course Canadian ratification of these treaties will
[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
be deposited. We know however that acts of ratification on this occasion, while ending a state of war, will not of themselves establish real peace, the real conditions for which depend, first of all,' upon a reasonable settlement with Germany and then upon the implementation of a great programme of reconstruction.
In the light of the general frustration which has fallen upon the process of peace-making with Germany and Austria, our own efforts to take a reasonable part in that settlement may not seem to be of particular worldwide significance. There is no escaping the fact, however, that if we are to contribute, to the measure of our ability, to that settlement, we must deal with the problem of securing adequate means for the expression of our views. In this connection, as hon. members know from previous discussions on the subject, we have sought to take a practical line which would not interfere in any way with the initiative of the great powers in the settlement of Europe but which would, however, permit us to play an active and constructive role. We have formulated and prepared our views in this connection and we have also made constructive suggestions in regard to the settlement itself.
The conference of foreign ministers which met this spring in Moscow did not get very much farther than to consider in what ways they could define with unmistakable precision the major issues upon which compromise will have to be reached before it will be possible to proceed with the settlement. In some cases the area of disagreement is small, even though the issues appear to be stubborn and unyielding. It is clear, however, that a new effort at compromise will have to be made before further progress can be achieved. That effort is now being undertaken by the Austrian treaty commission to find a solution to the major outstanding problem in regard to the settlement with Austria. Certain questions with regard to Germany were also referred by the foreign ministers to their deputies, but we have not heard that any real progress has been made, since the foreign ministers themselves adjourned their meeting. Hon. members know that they are expected to meet again in New York, and that the further session is to take place in November. We are still hopeful that the work of peace-making will go forward in the near future, and we shall be ready to contribute to the full measure of our ability in that process.
In the meantime, we are doing all we can to support the expanding activities of the united nations. I should like to call the
attention of hon. members particularly to the special session of the general assembly which met for three weeks during May to discuss the question of Palestine. This was an occasion of great importance. For the first time in history a great modern state, confronted with a difficult international problem, has turned voluntarily to an assembly representative of the nations of the world and asked for guidance and assistance toward settlement. It seems to me that we shall have achieved a very great measure of success in our efforts to establish a world organization if, within two years, we have created a body which can be looked upon as capable of dealing in a practical manner with a problem of that kind.
The future of the united nations depends,
I am convinced, upon its ability to contribute to the solution of questions of this nature on a realistic basis and in a practical manner, rather than perhaps upon progress being made in respect of some of the other activities of its committees in formulating theories of world government. The Canadian delegation to the special session took, as we know, an active and constructive role. The Canadian delegate was chairman of the main committee of the assembly in which the greater part of the actual work was done.
I do not wish to offend his modesty, because he is sitting before me at the present time, but I do not think that in the opinion of the world there has been a man who has handled himself better in these international meetings than did the head of our Canadian delegation at Lake Success in May last.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I rejoice in saying that that is the opinion of the world at large, and not merely the opinion of his admiring fellow citizens in Canada. We have also accepted membership in the special committee which was established to report on the Palestine problem, and the Canadian member of that committee, Mr. Justice Rand, is in Palestine with the committee at the present time. I think that is striking testimony of our willingness to do everything that is within the power of Canada and the Canadian people to contribute to the reestablishment of world peace. That was a serious problem, one that was not ours but one to which we have made an important contribution, whatever the results achieved in the end may be.
We have also participated in the regular activities of the united nations. We have sent delegations to sessions of the economic and social council and other commissions of that body on which we were represented. We have attempted to relate the work of ths
50S0
Supply-External Affairs

united nations to the life of our own country. In the report to parliament on the united nations we have endeavoured to set forth, not only for hon. members but for the citizens of this country generally, the major issues which are now before the united nations. I am sure that hon. members have felt that the department did a pretty creditable job in connection with the report it published on the second part of the general assembly of the united nations. I feel free to say that because all I had to do with it was a little editing while it was being prepared. All the material was supplied to me by the hard-working officials of the department.
As members of the external affairs committee and the special joint committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms know, we have attempted in the discussion of subjects such as refugees and human rights to relate our activities in the united nations to our own interests in immigration and proposals for a draft bill, if it be necessary, on human rights in our own country. I have no hesitation in saying that the time and effort which we have expended in participation in the united nations has been justified by what has been accomplished up to the present time. We have reason to still continue to do our best to strengthen the united nations and to make it capable of performing the lofty purposes for which the charter was signed.
I shall be glad when dealing with the various items to supply such further information as to the new missions we have had to open, staff, the incorporation into the department of the Canadian information service, appointments, other international conferences we have attended, and generally the things for which we expended last year the money which was voted by parliament and for which we are asking parliament this year to vote the supply we are now considering.


Mr. REID:: I wonder if the minister would answer a question with reference to the statement made in connection with offshore fisheries, a matter I brought up last year. The minister said earlier in the year that he intended to bring down a resolution in regard to Canada's attitude towards these fisheries. Will he make a statement now in the light of the fact that that resolution has not been brought down?
Mr. ST. LAURENT; The hon. member is quite right. It was Stated in the house that it was the intention of the government to introduce a resolution to assert a policy that would in fact be in accord with that announced by the President of the United States, and drafts of resolutions were prepared to make sure that there would be a uniform 
policy for the western hemisphere. The terms of the resolution were discussed with our United States friends. So far it has not appeared that we had reached the point where we were both agreed as to the best form of language to be used, and for that reason it was felt that it might be preferable to wait until there had been complete agreement on the exact language before bringing the resolution before the house. I should like to give hon. members the assurance that as far as the government is concerned the general policy is in accord with that which was expressed by the President of the United States.


Mr. HAZEN:: Will an act be passed by the congress of the United States, or is the proclamation which the President made sufficient? Are we to pass legislation here before legislation is passed by congress?
Mr. ST. LAURENT.: Those are precisely matters which are now under discussion. The two governments are in accord as to the aims to be achieved, but there has not yet been full agreement as to what is the best way of laying the foundation for an effort to get international agreement to the implementation of proper conservation methods for offshore fisheries.


Douglas King Hazen: Has there been correspondence with any of the other commonwealths, or have they been consulted about this principle? I do not say that is necessary, but I was wondering if that had taken place in the interests of conservation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The answer would depend upon the meaning one gives to the word "consultation." These are matters which are brought to the knowledge of the others, and the observations which any may have to make are welcomed and considered. The objective we are pursuing is to try to get a policy which will ultimately become world wide, and which can be implemented to the benefit of the whole of humanity.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations on what the minister has said and perhaps range a little farther afield. I should like to reassure the committee at the outset that I have no intention of making a long speech. I think I can settle for ten minutes, or fifteen minutes at the outside.
I think we should be grateful to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) for having given us this statement. In my short experience, and it

Supply-External Affairs
is short, this is the first time that I have heard such a statement when passing these accounts.
I think it would be hard to disagree with a single word which the minister has said. For myself I do not see how any person who would not echo what he said about the desirability of working for the success of the united nations, however disappointing that may be at times, could retain his sanity. Otherwise it seems to me that the world would have lost all meaning.
I echo strongly what he said about the difference between those countries where freedom is practised and those where it is not. I find myself asking from time to time: How is it that people behave in the way that our friends on the other side of Europe behave? I have been able to answer it to myself only by saying that they are prisoners of the situation which they have set up, that they are no longer free to behave except in the way they do behave. I suppose their power depends upon creating those feelings which they have created, and that they have reached a situation where they are terrified of uncreating it for fear that the source of their power may slip and they themselves fall.
Having expressed, and expressed most sincerely, my thanks to the minister I now want to make some comments which perhaps are not ones of eulogy. I still feel that the members of parliament are left in the position of receiving a report after things have been done. I want to say very quickly, and I said it in this house the other day, that I think I have common sense enough to know that the government cannot come into this house and discuss in advance with parliament everything they are going to do. I do not mean that at all. What I mean can best be described by referring to what goes on in England. I suppose we can in some ways regard them as a model because they have been dealing in foreign affairs, they have had such experience ; and of course foreign affairs is one thing when you are a small island off the coast of Europe and it is another thing when you are three thousand miles away, although that distance is becoming vastly less than we used to think it was. Nevertheless, we must admit that in England they have had this experience and no doubt it has given them a technique which we can hardly expect to attain overnight.
I looked up today to see just what had happened and I noticed that in February last there was a debate in connection with supply 83166-325
for foreign affairs. That was opened by the foreign secretary who spoke at length. There was a subsequent debate in May and a further debate in June. The foreign secretary did not open the debates in those cases, but he spoke in both debates. What struck me was that in those debates every opportunity was given parliament to make a contribution. Mutatis mutandis, what had been done there enabled parliament to do what parliament did yesterday afternoon when we were considering amendments to the criminal code. There was a discussion across the gangway by. hon. members on both sides who had experience in these matters, and the result was a meeting of minds.
I am not suggesting that that can be done exactly in connection with foreign affairs, but I am suggesting that if it were possible to have from time to time reports such as we have had today, with perhaps a little addition-I shall refer to that in a moment- then two things might happen. First, this house would be better informed and, second, the people of Canada would be better informed and I think that is important.
I should like to say a word further on another point. I notice in particular how Bevin in his speech last February closely related economic things to political and diplomatic things. If I heard him accurately, the minister made no specific reference to what I suppose is the most important thing affecting our welfare, the meeting at Geneva. I fully realize that that primarily concerns other departments; nevertheless I take it that it does concern also the Department of External Affairs to a considerable extent. I suggest that whatever the department be, the people of Canada and of parliament have been too long in ignorance. That is a most unsatisfactory position as regards that all-important matter. I suppose it is no exaggeration to say that our economic welfare -I do not want to say it will stand or fall-may be vitally affected by the success or failure of those proceedings. Subject to being corrected, I have been able to gain no knowledge of where we stand. As far as I know there has been no opportunity for anyone in this house to express his opinion on the general policy that we should follow. We know nothing of the instructions that have been given-and when I say instructions, again let me say that I am not seeking to get the fullest information, which can only be within the knowledge of the government itself; but I am suggesting that there could have been

Supply-External Affairs

and should have been opportunities for this house to express itself on that all-important question.
Therefore while thanking the minister gratefully for what he has done and for this review, I feel that it is lacking in two respects: first of all in specific reference to these things which are so vital and secondly I feel that it should have been made earlier. It is earlier than last year or the year before, and we have time enough now without immediate pressure to discuss these things, but I suggest that a good deal still remains to be desired. Meanwhile of course decisions are made and have to be made, and as I said at the outset, we are in danger of becoming more and more a rubber stamp-I should not say becoming more and more but continuing to be a rubber stamp, which almost inevitably parliament had become during the war.
I should like to read a small extract from Mr. Bevin's speech in February last to show what I mean by saying that he had diplomatic and economic things in his mind. He said this towards the end of his speech:
The present situation is very difficult. We want houses, and, in order to keep themselves warm, some countries are burning timber which we need for the houses. They cannot let us have the timber unless we can let them have coal. Therefore, we get a bottleneck both ways. They want goods, but there is a terrible vacuum in the world. I am constantly being pressed, first by one side and then by another, to try to help them to get supplies for which they are willing to pay.
I said a moment ago that I thought the practice which has been followed leaves gaps in our knowledge, and what is even worse in my opinion is that it leaves gaps which give rise to misunderstandings. The Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon spoke very warmly and to my mind very wisely in what he said not only about UNO but- about other groupings in the world; he spoke about the commonwealth and what it had done, and he spoke about unity in this country. Of course compared with some countries we in Canada are united. Nevertheless I cannot feel that we have the unity in this country which I believe we could have if we had been able- and when I say "we" I am not speaking of any political party-if we had been able to talk more frankly and openly to each other about our difficulties.
Frankly I do not think we are a united country. I think there are great gaps, and the great problem in this country is that we should try to be frank about it and try to overcome them. They did not always exist. For a long time in the early history of confederation both old parties, and I take them

as symptomatic of the political life of the country, were adequately represented throughout Canada. I can best illustrate that by saying that Sir John A. Macdonald was beloved and followed in Quebec just as Sir Wilfrid Laurier was beloved and followed1 in Ontario.
An. hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am glad to say that. Any Conservative would be glad to say that. That was a healthy situation for this country, and I believe we shall not have a healthy political situation in this country until that comes back again. I remember just before the last election a lifelong Liberal friend of mine-I think I would be describing him correctly if I called him a Grit-said to me: "If you people can do anything to create a situation in the province of Quebec similar to that which prevails in Ontario where both old parties have substantial recommendation, you will have done a great thing for this country". We did not make a good job of it in the last election, but we are going to do better next time, and no fair-minded man who has the interest of this country at heart can for one moment deny that that is true.


Brooke Claxton: Deny that you are going to do better? That is denied.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will say that we shall do much better.
There are two things to which I wish to refer as causing gaps in our unity: first, mutual distrust and suspicion, and the second in my opinion is the failure to make clear to ourselves what our true interests are. As to that distrust and suspicion it no doubt depends on a good many things, but I believe it depends on one thing to which I shall refer. I believe it is better to speak openly about these things and try to overcome them1 instead of pretending that they do not exist. It is better to face them openly and try to strike at the root of them and remove them.
I believe that one of the great reasons for distrust and suspicion is that there is a belief that there exist in this country a great many people who are not one hundred per cent Canadian, who somehow or other have a divided loyalty. I wish to say that outside of museum pieces such people do not exist. If I may for a moment speak personally, I am one hundred per cent Canadian both by birth and by conviction. Both my parents and so-me of my grandparents were born in this country. I say this about myself merely because I believe it describes virtually everyone else of my background in this country. I have a one

Supply-External Affairs
50B3
hundred per cent loyalty to this country. There is no division of any kind in my mind. I am loyal to the commonwealth to, 'because I am a Canadian and because Canada is loyal to the commonwealth. I say this deliberately because I believe that if what I say could be accepted throughout the length and breadth of this country a great deal of the suspicion which has poisoned our lives would be removed. I say without fear of contradiction that that has been true of the great leaders of this party, of Macdonald, of Borden, of Meighen. and of Bracken. I was reading in Maclean's the other day a cheery article about Sir John. When Canada was asked to send troops to the Sudan back in 1S85, Sir John asked what the Suez canal meant to us-showing how remote we were at that time, and also showing how one hundred per cent Canadian Sir John always was.
The second point I wish to make is this: we need a true appreciation of the vital interests of this country. The suspicion exists that there are people about who are not one hundred per cent Canadian but who somehow or other have the interests of Britain more at heart than the interests of their own country. In that connection I would like to read from a speech made in this house on June 9 by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) in the debate on visiting forces, in which he said this-and I quote this because I accept it and because I think every Canadian can accept it:
When you hear a member from Quebec speak in favour of an accord with the United States, or in favour of privileges to be given the LTnited States army, it is not because we in Quebec want to turn our eyes away from the British empire or the British commonwealth of nations and turn them toward the United States of America for good, leaving the former alone. It is just because we have the experience of the last war, because we want those two organizations. those two nations or groups of nations, to stand firmly on their feet right in front of the menace from without and from within.
I say that that is satisfactory to me and I am sure it is satisfactory to the members of this party, and if it is equally satisfactory, as I believe it is, to gentlemen on the other side, then why should there be any division on that point between us?
The next point I want to make is this. Just as in war time we cooperated most effectively and usefully with the United Kingdom and with the United States, so it is necessarj^ for us to do it still. We are still part of the strength of both. The United States are so nearly self-sufficient that our usefulness to them may be less. Nevertheless in a debate in this house not long ago it became clear that 83166-325J
we were a useful and necessary ancillary to their military preparations.
When we come to the commonwealth, of course, the need of us is far greater. We know the grievous losses suffered by the United Kingdom, and we know the difficulties in which the commonwealth stands, difficulties which have suggested to some people, to my mind foolishly and prematurely, that the commonwealth is in the process of liquidation. I wish to make this point-and I do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs will disagree; as nature abhors a vacuum, so the world of politics abhors a political vacuum. All the best commentators that I have ever read, notably Lippmann, whom I respect greatly, have noted with extreme alarm the possibility of the Bi'itish commonwealth losing its power and its beneficient influence.
I suppose we must face the fact that we have a great part to play in that respect. It is not altogether easy, because, as I say quite frankly, I do not think there is unity among us. I think that governments, and this government among others, have probably had to do certain things by indirection, perhaps not making too specific just the course they were following. I am earnestly suggesting that if these misunderstandings which I spoke of can be cleared up then that would not need to be done.
I have referred to the experience of Great Britain in the world of diplomacy, and I should like to read to the house just a word from an interesting statement which was related the other day by Sir Samuel Hoare in his book "Ambassador on Special Mission". He was inveighing against the iniquities of the Falange, and he says this:
The rector of the great Dominican university in Manila said to me, "You must not lose your temper. If the British lose their tempers, all is lost in Europe." It was perhaps worth showing irritation to elicit such a tribute to my fellow-countrymen.
I think we can be very frank. It is quite true that we do not always find Englishmen the easiest people in the world to get on with. They are different from us. I do not imagine that Mr. Churchill was always the easiest person to get on with. They may find tiresome the little things that we lesser folk are interested in. Nevertheless I should like to go back and say that we have had the experience in two wars that the British are great people to be with in a pinch. And what is more important, going back to my first point in speaking about the commonwealth, the future of peace which hangs on a quite slender enough thread, however optimistic we
50S4
Supply-External Affairs

allow ourselves to be, if you take the long view, the future of peace depends I believe greatly on the strength of the commonwealth. I remember a speech of Churchill which he made some time in the thirties. At that time he was speaking chiefly about the United Kingdom and its chance of survival. He based its chance of survival chiefly on two things. He said he thought the United Kingdom had as good a chance to survive as any nation, because it was more united and more experienced. It seems to me that just as the prelate in Spain said the other day to Hoare, that calmness, that self-confidence which we often find irritating, nevertheless is valuable to us all, just in the same way as our contribution to the commonwealth can be the plus quality of energy and of initiative and inventiveness which we have shown.
I am afraid that I have cheated a little on my indication to you, sir, as to the time I should take, but I am just about to finish. I have tried to make two points. I have tried to say something on this question of foreign affairs because I believe it is of enormous importance that people should come to know more about it. I do not see how they are to come to know more about it unless we of the House of Commons know more about it. Second, I have emphasized the question of unity in this country which seems to me of an importance which I cannot find words to express.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I have almost concluded, but I wish to express another thought.
I referred to the importance of unity at home, in a world confronted with so many difficulties and dangers. I emphasized that our country needs all her might and that she can achieve it only if sympathy and friendly understanding prevail among all sections of our people.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Such sympathy and understanding will materialize if we desire them whole-heartedly. For my part I sincerely and deeply long for them.
Finally, I believe that a nation is fortunate if her people show such understanding and sympathy, but it makes for the glory of a country if her citizens have those feelings, and in addition strive to achieve a common objective.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
(Text):


Angus MacInnis: My remarks shall be even briefer than those
fMr. Macdonne!!.]
of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, not because I do not think there are many things that could be said about foreign affairs; but the more I consider the world situation at the moment the less am I convinced that any good could be achieved from what I should like to say. Consequently what I shall say under the circumstances may not be very important.
I missed a part of the minister's statement because of being called out of the house. If what had gone before what I heard was of the same quality as the part of the speech I heard, I wish to congratulate the minister on what he said.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedonnell), who has just taken his seat, referred to the fact that we were not a united people. Taking the limited view of our affairs perhaps that is right, but I believe that today if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) stated correctly-and I believe he did-the foreign policy of this government, then the house is fairly well united on that foreign policy because it is based on the united nations. While there may be some disagreement between us on this or that point, so long as the policy of the country is based on the united nations charter -1 do not think there will be any wide differences between us. Of course today, for reasons of which we are all aware, the united nations organization moves extremely slowly in the settlement of world problems, and I believe that in various matters this country cannot wait altogether on the united nations. It must do certain things on its own behalf, so long as these things are not contrary to the principles of the united nations charter-and at the moment I cannot recall any of our relations with other countries which go beyond the charter. I too am in favour of the utmost cooperation among the members of the commonwealth. I am in favour of that to any extent beyond where the commonwealth would act as a block in opposition to member nations of the united nations. In my opinion nothing but good can accrue both to ourselves and to the world from the closest cooperation within the commonwealth. Today I think we are within a few days of the time when the self-governing nations which comprise the commonwealth will be enlarged by the addition of the two Indian sections which will remain within the commonwealth at least for the present. I think it is a matter for rejoicing that that transition was made in the way it was. To me at least it is an accomplishment of the greatest importance.

Supply-External Affairs
The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the necessity, if we were to have peace, that the political and economic affairs of the nations of Europe be put in order. I think we will all agree with that. It is said that man is a political animal, but I suggest that before being a political animal he is an economic animal, and that the first step in building peace and in putting the world's affairs on a stable basis will have to be the economic restoration of the world. And that includes, as a must, the reorganization of Germany and the setting up of self-government * within that country. It will also mean the settlement of a peace treaty with Japan and the instituting of normal trade relations with that country. All these things are of the utmost importance if we are to build the peace for which the war was fought.
I think that one of the things that have retarded progress all over the world has been the demand in both Canada and the United States for an end to the restrictions and the cooperation which was so useful to us during the war-to get back to normal. The result of that is making it difficult for the countries of Europe today. They cannot reconstruct themselves, they cannot get back to stability without assistance from the United States and from Canada, and the removal of controls over prices has to a large extent nullified what these countries tried to do through borrowing. The values of these loans today are a fraction of what they were when the loans were made. That is so because of what has taken place here and in the United States and not because of anything that has happened in Europe. So I suppose what we shall have to do is to give as gifts what we cannot provide by way of loans.
It is the same conflict of interests that is making it so difficult to reach agreement in Geneva. It is not today at Geneva so much a question of conflicting ideologies as of conflicting economic interests between countries who have the same political points of view. Therefore until we resolve these economio contradictions in our system we shall find the restoration of normal conditions very difficult, if not indeed impossible.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario referred to the lateness at which these estimates were brought down, and he said that we have not time to debate them. The same was said last year and the year before, so I think that under the circumstances what must be done by anyone who wants to talk now is to talk, because if we forgo that we shall find the same obstacle at the next session. If we want to debate and question we shall have to debate it regardless of time.
As far as the Department of External Affairs estimates are concerned, we have had plenty of opportunity for discussion in the external affairs committee, and I doubt whether there are many items in the estimates that we disagree about. But again, as I said at the beginning, I do not think that any remarks I might make today would be of any great importance, and I shall leave it at that.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): The minister is to be commended for having initiated this debate, because, to use his own opening words, it brings, stark realities before the country. I think that many of the causes of division of opinion in our land rest upon diversity of what is accepted as fact. I believe that our people as a whole, if they could agree upon the facts, would almost inevitably be in agreement on any course of action.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: If we could find the facts.


Mr. HACKETT:: That being the case, the minister is to be congratulated on opening the discussion, because as a rule discussion tends to throw the truth into the open and to make it available to all those who seek it.
The minister has said that this country entertains hostility toward no one and sentiments of peace toward all. He was quick to add that that is not a statement of foreign policy. It is a statement of the attitude of Canadians toward one another and of Canada toward the world at large. We are not seeking the lands of other nations, and we are not seeking to impose our will upon other peoples. We want peace, and if evidence of the truth of that statement were lacking, it is possible that events which have taken place in this city within the last fortnight would convince the doubting that the people of Canada are solicitous for the maintenance of peace and have turned their eyes and addressed their prayers to the Almighty that He might give this greatest of boons to Canada to this tortured world. Nevertheless within our own time peace has twice vanished from the earth and all the nations have been engaged in deadly conflict.
A great war is not always a matter of human choice. It sometimes marks the point where events pass out of human control. It is a kind of social convulsion, an eruption of forces which lie dormant like the subterranean forces of a volcano on the slopes of which men build their cities and cultivate their fields. Wars do come, and it behooves peoples to be ready to meet the scourge when it comes to them. There has been diversity of opinion
50S6
Supply-External Affairs

among Canadian people as to facts. An element in the country who are loyal citizens of Canada, who have been here for a long time, who are willing to make every sacrifice for the betterment of Canada and for the protection of her people, believe that we have no interest in wars which take place beyond our territory. That group is not extremely large but is eminently respectable, and it expresses opinion forcefully and not infrequently. Just to show how that element feels I turn for a moment to an editorial which appeared in Le Devoir a short time ago, in which the editor argued that the only way Canada could escape from the entanglements of war and financial difficulties was to cut loose from Britain. He states:
(Translation):
The only practical way for Canada to become independent is to proclaim herself a republic.
(Text):
Then he goes on to say that in South America states have become republican and in that way have achieved their entire independence ; and he intimates that it is probably for this reason that they have escaped war. I do not think this opinion is universally held in the province of Quebec; in fact, I know it is not. I know it is but the opinion of a small element. But being an opinion which is held, I think it is well that it should be openly expressed-in our countiy everybody is entitled to his opinion-and it is well that such opinions should be brought to the touchstone of discussion and debate; that their value be tested.
A series of articles was printed in this newspaper about that time, and I do not think it is going too far to say that the opinion expressed there was that Canada had no interest in either of the great wars, that she had uselessly wasted the lives of valuable citizens, uselessly squandered her treasure and uselessly burdened herself for all future time by participation in these wars. The reason for that point of view as I understand it- and it is always dangerous to attempt to make oneself the interpreter of the motives of others; I have no right to speak for the element whose views are so forcefully set forth in this newspaper-is that the group feels that the enemy which it has to fear is an element or elements within Canada which might be hostile to the culture, the religion, the language and the way of life of the French people. They make frequent references to methods of taxation which they think are unfair, to reluctance to accord the privilege of speaking over the radio in their own {Mr. Hackett.]
tongue, and sundry other matters of the kind. As I understand the attitude of that group, the possibility of Canada being overrun by an enemy or subjugated by force of arms is something -which has never come upon their horizon. The possibility that Britain might be defeated in the field, as I understand it, has never occurred to them. They believe in the enduring supremacy of British arms as ardently as ever any little boy believed in the supremacy of his father.
I am saying these things, not to be disagreeable, but in an effort to bring before the house an explanation for the attitude of eminently decent Canadians. They call everybody an imperialist who seems to differ from them on this point. When Canada took up arms with Great Britain, France and the United States they deemed that Canada was making a mistake and that she was urged into that position by an element which they style imperialist, by an element to whom the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario referred a moment ago, namely those people who, having to choose between Canadian and English or British interests, would always sacrifice the Canadian interests for the British or imperial.
I believe there may be some people like that in Canada because in most large groups of population one generally finds a few extremists. However I think their number is very limited. Some day I should like to meet a person of that kind because so far I have never met one. I believe all Canadians are devoted and loyal to Canada. They give their first., their abiding and continuous allegiance to Canada. If some have gladly taken up arms in other wars it is because they desired that Canada be a good place for their children to live in, exactly as the element to which I have referred, desired "the same thing for their children. They conceive however that the peril is not a local one. These people who are called imperialists were the people who feared that if the world were overrun and dominated by a combination of Germans, Italians and some of their satellite countries, our country would be overrun and dominated by these elements, our liberties would disappear and our lives would cease to be the lives of free men.
These people loved Canada no less than the first group; but they are not in agreement with the first group as to where lies the great danger to Canada. And seeing that danger of foreign aggression they made common cause w'ith the others to defend Canada.
A debate of this kind affords an opportunity to discuss coolly and, I like to think, quite beyond the scope of party controversy, these

Supply-External Affairs
questions of external affairs, where truth may be known in its fulness, and where wise decisions may be taken in the light of that truth. I am one who likes to believe that if frank and full discussion of this type can be had with reasonable frequency there would be developed a public sentiment based on the acceptance of essential facts which would do much to bring complete harmony to elements which may have been somewhat out of harmony in the past.
Oh, sir, I am not suggesting that people of one racial strain can be expected to have all the enthusiasm for the glories of the past of another racial strain that they have for their own. No; that is against nature, and it is not necessary. What we need is agreement as to essential Canadian interests. We want peace; we want it beyond everything else. We want to be free to live our own lives, to grow up and to develop; and as part of that programme we must be in a position to defend ourseLves should war come.
And war does come, whether we will it or not. In the past it has come twice within the memory of all within sound of my *voice. If we can so determine the course we are to follow as to bring ourselves into complete internal harmony, then I believe a great deal will have been accomplished to maintain peace. Nothing is more provocative of war, nothing does more to encourage the aggressor, than evidence of division among those whom he would attack.
Canada must realize the great treasure of which she is custodian. When I say "treasure" I refer not only to her wealth and her broad acres. I mean that she is the depository of the genius of two great civilizations which, if they have not fused, have so reacted upon each other as to engender a type of liberty, a type of freedom, a type of tolerance that has made us the envy of the world. We have that to protect, that we may ever hold it high as a beacon to those distraught nations -which have suffered in the furnace of war. We have a double heritage: we are heirs to the culture of two great civilizations, the French and the British. We hold these as a trust. To be faithful we must defend them. The words of Victor Hugo depict this duty:
(Translation):
And. besides, true to the blood I have inherited from my soldierly father and my Veil dean mother.
(Text):


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Chairman, I beg the indulgence - of the committee for a few moments. My primary reason for speaking at this time is the fact that I have the great honour and heavy responsibility of having been appointed chairman of the committee on external affairs in 1945. That was an honour which I greatly appreciated.
I knew from the membership of that committee that its work was bound to be a success. I -am glad to state now, and I think all hon. members will agree, that to some extent we made a success of our activities.
The deliberations of that committee were on the same plane as those we have had this afternoon. There was no trace of partisanship. We dealt with matters more or less in an academic way and in the abstract. We all realized what was involved in the international and national questions which were dealt with. In external affairs the pivot of things seems to shift most rapidly. We found in our deliberations that a thing which was new today might be expected to be old within a few days.
I considered with some trepidation the first order of reference to the committee. I think all members of our committee will agree when I say that we brought forth an organism which I believe has proved to the country and to parliament that that standing committee has a place in our national life. The next order of reference was the extradition bill. I speak for myself, but I believe I am voicing the sentiments of most members of the committee. Our committee did not have the same power as the external relations committee of the United States, but opportunities were afforded to people from every section of Canada to express their opinions on certain matters. A certain amount of good publicity was given to our deliberations which I think has proved beneficial to both countries.
Last session there was an innovation as far as the committee was concerned. We were given as an order of reference the estimates of the external affairs committee. The doors of that department were opened wide and to some extent we were given wider latitude than we had before. In a word, and without taking any -undue credit, I believe we improved even on the activities of the sittings in 1945. Last year there appeared before our committee representatives of the Zionist organization and of the Arabs who gave their views on the Palestine situation. I think a certain amount of good resulted from having those representatives appear before the parliamentary committee. They presented some very good briefs which received a lot of publicity, and on that score I believe much was accomplished.
The thing that struck me in our first deliberations was the knowledge of some of our members, such as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the hon. member for Rose-
Supply-External Affairs

town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. membef for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). These hon. members had had opportunities to see for themselves what went on in London, in Europe and in San Francisco. No doubt their knowledge and experience was an important factor in our discussions on international problems.
Early during the present session I had the good fortune to head a delegation of our membership to Flushing Meadows and Lake Success. I believe that every one who attended was greatly benefited from what he heard and saw. I was always a supporter of the old league of nations, and I am a still stronger supporter of the united nations. I am positive that some good is bound to come from the united nations. You cannot have representatives of 54 or 55 nations, representatives of all colours, all races and all creeds, meet sincerely in a deliberative assembly in an effort to solve the problems that confront the world as well as their own countries, without beneficial results. If I could have my wish at the moment it would be that every citizen of the world could assist in three or four or half a dozen of those meetings. I am sincerely convinced that they would come away converted to the necessity of the united nations and also of the great good it has accomplished and is bound to accomplish in the future.
I do not want to elaborate these matters because I realize the lateness of the session. However, I Should like to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who was Secretary of State for External Affairs when the standing committee on external affairs was established. I want to thank him sincerely and every official of his department for the fine cooperation they gave. That applies just as forcibly to the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. Those two statesmen have brought honour, not only to themselves but to Canada as a whole through the way they have participated in international deliberations.
Speaking now as chairman of the committee I should like to pay a tribute to the members of the committee. I appreciated immensely the fact that they cooperated with me one hundred per cent. If we have accomplished anything it is due to every member of the committee, individually and collectively. One hundred per cent credit must be given to the members of the external affairs committee. I want to pay a sincere tribute to the officials *who appeared before our committee. I can easily understand that when they were first called to appear before us they may have 
experienced some uneasiness, but the moment they realized the open-mindedness of our members, the moment they saw that there was no trace of politics in our deliberations, we received from them the finest cooperation possible. That was a revelation, not only to the members of the committee 'but to the whole of Canada through the reports of the committee. My hope at the moment is that that committee will continue to do in the future the good' work it has done in the last three years. It has not been an easy job, but the government and parliament did the right thing in getting this committee to function. We must of necessity make our Canadian people more and more conscious of external affairs and international problems. No matter what we may think, we must at the moment to some extent be our brother's keeper. We cannot get away from that. We cannot erect a national wall around our country that will prevent us from seeing what is going on in the world outside.
One of the finest experiences I had when we were at Lake Success and Flushing Meadows this spring was to see the respect and love that the delegates of the united nations organization had for Canada and Canadians. That is easily explained. During the last two' world conflicts we answered the call loyally and spontaneously to save democracy and fight for freedom and liberty, for Christianity and all the things we cherish so dearly, and now having gone into the battle to the limit so that our side may be victorious we go to the united nations organizations with an open mind. We seek no aggrandizement, no expansion of our territorial frontiers. We go there with only one objective in our minds, and that is peace, peace for Canada, peace for the whole world and for all time to come.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to call the attention of the committee to the estimates of this department, amounting to-S6.484.000. and to say that there is room for very wide differences of opinion on all important questions which relate to the peace of' the world and foreign affairs. How does it come about that we have not yet had an opportunity, even though this be the one hundred and fifth day of the session, to discuss-these very important matters? I would like to find out where Canada now stands as a. nation in regard to external and foreign affairs. The old policy was: no commitments; parliament will decide. Just like the United' States, which never had a foreign policy. They had a war with Spain and another war with Japan and two wars in our generation.

Supply-External Affairs
against Germany, yet until recently they never had a foreign policy. That was true of us. Our policy was one of wait and see; no commitments; parliament will decide. I was almost alone in this house between the two great wars in calling the attention of the government, especially before the outbreak of the second war, to the need of rearmament. But we saw the result of the policy that was followed.	.
And now where does Canada stand so far as our policy on external affairs is concerned? What are our commitments? As Mr. Walter Lippmann once said in his textbook on foreign affairs, our foreign affairs policy is something like an accounting system which shows you who are your friends and who are not your friends, and what are their commitments and debits and liabilities and assets. How do we stand as a nation, and is Canada able to carry out certain commitments? What are those commitments? And when, where and how are we to carry them out?
We were discussing the other day article 41 of the charter of the united nations. I looked up the Oxford dictionary definition to find out what "charter" meant. It gives; "written grant of rights by sovereign, or grants or privileges." The definition contained in the dictionary does not describe the charter at all. It is now turned into a phrase, Atlantic charter-U.N.O. charter. A lot of these charters are moonshine, or vague hopes of those who create them. When it comes to a showdown they do not amount to anything. What power has the government to carry out these Canadian commitments? Remember once before there was trouble with Italy in regard to Ethiopia, and this government passed sanctions. No sooner were the sanctions passed than we had to rescind them, if you please, because we were depending upon the league of nations and the league of nations depended on peace pacts and the Young plan, Dawes plan, scraps of paper and all that kind of thing. W'e saw the futility of it all. It led to the greatest war in history, and we shall be led into another one unless we stop, look and listen and do not make alliances unless we know how to carry them out.
What are those commitments, and when and where? Have they been made with the knowledge and consent of parliament? The answer is no. Parliament has never been consulted about them at all. One would think the officials were dealing only with their own personal affairs.
The last war closed nearly two years ago. The mother country and the dominions had to do it all alone for two and a half years
during the last war. Two of our allies, Russia and the United States, came in because they were invaded. Russia no doubt had, been in league with Germany. It. came out in the evidence at the Nuremberg trials that Russia was ready to make a deal with Germany and call it off. Britain for two and a half years of the war went it all alone because of its pledge to Poland, save for the help of the dominions.
We have no foreign policy so far as the empire goes. We have ambassadors all over the seven seas. They occupy so manjr hotel suites and railway cars that it is appalling to think what is going to become of it all. It has now gone up by leaps and bounds to $6,500,000 a year-all the novice ambassadors and diplomats.
Where were we two years ago? Britain was at the zenith of her power. She had won the war; she was supreme. Where do we stand today, two years afterwards? We find that two of our allies who did not go into the war voluntarily but went in because they were invaded are now claiming supremacy, a place in the sun, and all that kind of thing, and dear knows what will be the end of it all. The empire will be dissolved if we do not have a foreign policy and allow things to go into liquidation, where the empire is now heading.
The Prime Minister has done a great deal of good work. He knows more about these matters than any of us, and I agree with what he said on Monday in regard to the treaties with Italy, Finland, Poland and other countries. Unless the dominions are going to hang together they are going to hang separately. None of us can go it alone. The Prime Minister was quite right when he said with respect to the treaties with Italy, Poland, Finland and the other countries mentioned in the resolution, that we could do nothing about them.	We had ourselves to blame very
largely for that, because we agreed to this settlement made at Potsdam, Yalta, Moscow and other places by the great powers. No doubt the best settlement was made, not in. the interests of the peace of the world but. because Mr. Stalin and the late President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill had agreed on certain things at several conferences that were held, and the small powers cannot alter a line of it. So we can do nothing about these treaties as a dominion, nor can the other dominions, nor any of the smaller countries. Once you signed at San Francisco the veto charter you signed your death warrant. You gave any one country of the four the right to veto the others. You used to play lacrosse, Mr. Chairman, and you know you could not talk back to the umpire or the referee. He had
Supply-External Affairs

veto power to rule you off, and one of the four great powers can refuse to play with the other three and veto it all.
What has been the result of this policy? The United States wrant our place in the sun, and they are going to get it because there is nobody to stop them. Talk about what happened in India. You will wake up some day and find out what is going to happen there. United States and Russia are two great countries; they were our allies in the war. We hope that they will continue in peace as they did in the war. If the various parts of the British empire would hang together with the mother country they are in every way vastly superior in resources on land, sea and in the air, to the other countries I have named. This is the fourth of July. I am surprised that at the opening of the session today not one word was said about it by the government or by anybody else. We are proud of our great neighbour and ally. I congratulate them today on their great anniversary. They left the British empire. We had the President over here the other day. He and the Prime Minister have done a great deal for the peace and security of the world. I think our United States friends will appreciate us far more if we were to talk out in plainer language and tell what is going on, express the views of this country. I have always contended that between the two wars and during the last war we surrendered too much of our political, economic, military and social initiative to Washington.
They are a great nation, and as I say, I am surprised that at the opening of the house today not a word was said about the fourth of July. There is no union jack on the building today. Some days ago the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) told hon. members that two flags were sent all over the country to be placed on public buildings. Is that not right? That is what he said. He said the caretakers could choose either one, and that both were issued and' they had his authority for it. When the President came there were quite a few union jacks around this building. I was glad to see them. There is still room for them, because parliament has not as yet adopted any change in this.
There is a very large body of public opinion in this country that is in agreement with the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on these small treaties. I am glad to see the Prime Minister has chosen the twelfth of July as the day for prorogation, because there will be many union jacks on the streets that day. I hope my good friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. 
Mackenzie) will carry out what he said. He said he was going to ride in here on a white horse that day. I think he was talking in a humorous way, and to some new, young reporter who took it seriously. We appreciate what he has done.
Coming back to more sensible talk, I am surprised that we have not heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will.


Thomas Langton Church: He is an eloquent orator. WTe have not heard from him yet on this topic. I am glad he is going to speak because during the dark days before the war his party said that they were going to depend on pacts and peace talks and all that kind of thing. They did not need an army or a navy, but would just depend on Washington instead of London and Glasgow for defence. That is what some of them said. My hon. friend was not in the house at that time; therefore he is not to blame for these views.
We are spending $6,500,000 on this department. Away back in 1898 Sir Wilfrid Laurier went to the Diamond Jubilee. He was first in the Diamond Jubilee procession. He told the people over there, "If you want our aid a.t any time, invite us to your councils." What is badly needed in this country is an empire conference. I made reference to that the other day. We should have had an empire conference long ago instead of the present policy of just being informed of events. Are we to sit still in the house and in the country and see the empire made a scrap of paper, scuttled and dissolved as is being done all over the world? Are we not interested in it? A million men went from the dominions in the first great wax on their own status of sovereignty, autonomy and all that kind of thing. One million men went over there under their own status of their own free will. They were all volunteers. They went over there and fought for the mother country on their own sovereignty, status and autonomy. One hundred and thirty thousand fell on the field of battle, and a great former prime minister said that by that action they "changed the history of the whole civilized world." In -the recent wax history repeated itself. Here we are today practically out of the empire. Separatism abounds in this country. There is talk of changing the flag and the anthem. We have embassies all over the world. We are making our own treaties. It is now proposed that privy council appeals be abolished. There is one appeal that can never be abolished, namely, appeal by grace to our sovereign king. Every British subject

Sup-ply-External Affairs
all over the world today has the right of appeal by grace to the King of England who is King of Canada also.
In the British House of Commons the other day they discussed a change in the name "dominion". They have changed designation of the colonial secretary and all that kind of thing. They have struck out the word "dominion" and want to put in the word "commonwealth", to change our British North America Act or the term "Dominion of Canada". They cannot change that without an amendment in this country to that act. I warn them about-that. We had a debate in this house on a motion by a private member which was rejected. That cannot be changed without amending the British North America Act.
The Statute of Westminster in 1932 was one of the greatest empire wrecking statutes we ever had. It was one of the reasons we had another war. New Zealand and Australia were exempted in five or six clauses, which they have only recently adopted. I believe an empire conference should be called immediately. I regret I was not here last Friday when tributes were paid to the late Viscount Bennett. Speaking in the House of Lords about a week ago he called for an empire conference. Mr. Casey and Mr. Fraser did the same thing. He said that an empire conference should be called to go into the position of the empire with the mother country for the future. He said that in the days to come the empire was going to be dissolved. He said as follows:
We have not had an imperial conference for some time at which all of the commonwealth was represented and we have no parliament which speaks for all. We, therefore, are developing separate policies in the various nations of the commonwealth and you cannot have a commonwealth last long if all the nations that comprise it are developing separate policies.
What we are facing is the greatest crisis this country has ever faced-and the epitaph has been written in cold-blooded terms just as accurately as far as guessing can be accurate. Many countries believe we are through.
Others have expressed the same view. We had the able representative of Australia, Right Hon. Mr. Bruce, in London for thirteen years. He is no longer the high commissioner now; he has retired from the post he held for thirteen years. He is a man who did a great deal for the empire and was a soldier in the great war. He appeared in 1923 as a representative of Australia, the high commissioner in the old country. He was a great supporter of empire preference, empire councils and empire meetings all the time.
Then we had the statement made the other day by Sir Thomas Blarney, which was quoted
in the Sydney Morning Herald of May 18 last. They have a lot of newspapers down there, and you can find some of them in the reading room. He said:
That the maintenance of the Suez canal and other strategic points in the east has had and will continue to have a far-reaching effect on empire relations is evident to all. The future of empire unity centres in the canal. The enemy could go through the Red sea and cross the Pacific. They are talking about abandoning Alexandria as a base, notwithstanding that it has been one of the life lines of the British empire. We are in danger of parting with the Suez. Hong Kong, Singapore and all our other bases the world over, but where would we have been in the last war and in this second war if Britain had given up all her bases on the seven seas? The result would have been that Germany would have won the war. We can grant rights to the use of raw materials and to the use of bases, but sovereignty, never 1 When Mr. Men-zies was here, speaking with emphasis, he made light of the differences between the dominions. He argued for empire unity.
The policy in the United States is something like ours, continued world peace and friendship with all nations. That is all very well as far as it goes, but no one in this house has yet told the nation exactly what Canada's policy is in external affairs. No one really knows where we stand because there is uncertainty, evasion and inertia, and the country and the house are both completely in the dark. The people are not given the facts, but are blindfolded. We are given very little information. No statement has been made by the government about our commitments abroad, about the questions of defence at home or outside Canada, or what our defence will cost us. In other words, we are repeating the error we made between the two wars.
Mr. Attlee said that he was much disappointed with the united nations organization during the past two years and that we were as close to a third war as we ever were, and it is disappointing that no one can tell what Canada's foreign policy really is. An external affairs committee was appointed to study this whole question, but nothing has been done. Trivial matters are discussed but no attention is given to the grave problem regarding the dismemberment of the empire which has been going on day and night since the government now in office in Great Britain has been in power. After the last war, Lord Milner asked this very pertinent question in 1922 at Oxford, how it was that the dominions were all willing to make treaties with every nation throughout the world but apparently were not willing to come together and map out a common economic policy among themselves for the good of the empire in view of world conditions. The fact is that all imports
Supply-External Affairs

ant questions are being left to executive action of this government and we do not know what is even said or done.
What has the empire parliamentary association really done? It seldom meets and it is so Washington-minded it seems to pay more attention to pan-American affairs than to its duties to the mother country and the British commonwealth with a view to keeping the dominions and the old land together, for which it was founded. We have not had an interim report from the government on what has been taking place in that connection.
We are still a part of the British empire. We still belong to the empire, and if there is trouble again we shall have to depend upon common action on the part of all members of the commonwealth. I contend that we are not doing what we should to hold the empire together. We are not going to be talked out of it, but will have to be fought out of it. I warned the government, when I spoke in this house at the time, in 1945, that the conference at San Francisco would be a complete failure. I had no confidence in it. Churchill did not go to it, nor did Mr. Stalin. It was really President Roosevelt's idea, and it was most unfortunate that he should have died at that juncture, after what he had done for civilization. I am opposed to the policy that came out of that conference and the veto fiasco. I contend that the government of the day must bear the responsibility for the foreign policy of this country so long as it remains the government. The responsibility belongs to the government and not to the opposition. It is not for the opposition to propose a policy, though I would emphasize that all parties in the house should line up to treat this question in a non-partisan spirit. There is no room for party considerations so far as the foreign policy of Canada is concerned. We are faced with questions of life and death, if we do not work in peace as we did in war, with America, Russia and France.
After the last war we had the league of nations, and what did it accomplish? It was responsible for the rebuilding of Germany. Britain and Canada lent the Germans money, and so did the United States. The result of the actions we took at that time-and when I say we. I mean all the nations that had fought against the Germans-was to prevent any real recovery in Europe. We lost two of our allies at that time. France and Italy, because attention was concentrated on building up Germany through loans. All that led to the second world war.
Besides helping Germany through the loans we made, we foolishly disarmed and threw

away the finest army, navy and air force the world ever saw. We had notes and pacts and all sorts of things which we thought would bring about peace. We thought we could have peace by means of agreements, but we found to our sorrow that the pen is not mightier than the sword, and it only led to another war. And now .the nations are meeting again at Lake Success

with what- success no one know's. All that has been accomplished has been talk. It has rightly been described as a modern tower of babel. That is what Churchill called it. It is that and nothing else, fifty-four countries, talking twenty-one different languages.
Because of our failure to get together within the commonwealth we are, I contend weaker as an empire in international affairs than we were after the last war. I hope no one in this country will forget for a moment that we are still a member of the British empire, that the British empire has been our best friend, and that unless we hang together, we will hang separately. None of us can go it alone. If anything should happen it will mean the complete disruption and dissolution of the empire and Britain will be, like Denmark, but a little island country in the North sea. Does anyone want to see that? It will happen, however, unless we bestir ourselves.
It is interesting to note the views expressed by the New York Times recently. That journal remarked editorially, only in June of this year, that from the day the American colonies broke away from the mother country the United States had been dependent upon the British fleet for protection. That newspaper said:
The members of that empire are our best friends and our nearest relations. Their friendship and their earnest desire to work with us should be encouraged in every possible way. But instead of any effort to work with the empire we have the strange scene of the Geneva trade talks which the British empire has attended, not as a powerful unit, but as a scattered and unrelated number of countries. We are not allowed to know what is going on there but we can guess.
Britain used her fleet to make the Monroe doctrine a reality in the western hemisphere. That doctrine was made effective because of the existence of the British fleet. In fact, the British navy was the Monroe doctrine. It was the British navy that safeguarded the freedom not only of the empire but of this hemisphere as well. Britain got the world peace, justice and security for four centuries, in the wars with Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and twice with Germany in our generation, by her great command of the sea.

Supply-External Affairs
It is interesting to recall on February 4, 1899, Rudyard Kipling's poem addressed to the United States was published in MacLean's magazine and entitled "Take up the White Man's Burden." No man knew better in his time the load of the buoyant and expanding British empire. Perhaps Kipling said what is happening to-day-a bankrupt Britain, unable to carry the load as of old.
Turn about is fair play-the royal navy kept the shores and ports of the Americas inviolate against the predatory powers. For a century or more. Britain maintained peace in all the troubled spots of the earth and now two gigantic wars, ten years in all. have sapped British resources, and talking about the royal navy when Dewey went to smash the Spanish fleet at Manila it was a British admiral who signalled to a German commander to shy off and not barge in, or else!
That is true today.
To come to these estimates, what has been going on? What value do we get from them? We see these vast expenditures of six and a half million. They are of little or no value, and involve duplication in countries where we have trade commissioners and other officials.
In a return made to this house, our ambassadors and their staffs and retinue are shown all over the seven seas: in Buenos Aires, Brussels, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago, Nanking, Bogota, Havana, Prague, Copenhagen, Cairo, Paris, Berlin, Athens, Guatemala City, Rome, Tokyo, Mexico City, The Hague, Oslo, Lima, Warsaw, Lisbon, Stockholm, Berne, Moscow, Washington; and away over in India where the civil war is today, the greatest civil war in history. Then coming to Ottawa you find ambassadors. In fact, we are building up almost a standing army of these ambassadors all over the seven seas. We are shipping them houses and coal at fabulous costs to the people of this country. I can tell you this, that there is a useleas waste of money through duplication. As I said the other day, some of them do not know anything at all about diplomacy. They have neveT had any training in it. Yet it seems we have the ambassador cure for employment in the city of Ottawa, at large cost. They have food, clothing and housing, a first secretary, second secretary, third secretary and various other secretaries, and all that kind of thing; and the people have to pay for it by taxation, which they cannot afford. I hope something will be done to reduce it. Our ambassadors are only novices, who learn by experience.
Regarding this particular matter of Russia, she was our great ally, and as was stated in a great British paper, and as I mentioned the other night:
Russia is too weak to fight anybody now. and will be so for many years to come. Even if she
had superior armaments of the most dreadful kind she would not attack, though she might grow provocative, to the point of disaster preferring to see the capitalist world break itself up, if possible, without embroiling the communist world in war. This does not mean that the soviet government is not the enemy of the west. It is, and it must be. There is no escape from this. But equally, there is no inevitability about a war. If we in the west can keep our own houses in order and base ourselves so firmly that there is no danger of internal collapse we have nothing to fear from Russia. Either the Marxist theory is right, or it is wrong. If it is right, there will be war with Russia whether we like it or not, and Russia will ultimately, though not by any means immediately, triumph. If it is wrong, it is up to us to prove it wrong by keeping our heads and refusing to play the Russian game.
Then it goes on to say:
Nor is any purpose served by quarrelling with Russia. If there is any good left in us, we can afford to agree to differ. If there is not, then nothing matters. Our task is quite straightforward. We have to organize the British empire and Europe, wholly disregarding Russian threats and feelings, on sound and decent lines which will make for the contentment of the millions.
That is correct, and I believe it is true that we should have open diplomacy with them, because they suffered terribly in this war. They lost twenty million men. The cities and towns in eastern Russia and on the border of Germany were reduced to rubble. They are suffering greatly. I hope that we shall get and keep together with them as we did in the war.
With regard to lease-lend, how did lease-lend come about? Britain gave up bases all the way from Newfoundland to British Guiana to America on 99-year leases. Those leases ought to be cancelled for the protection given in the Atlantic, which Britain and the dominions gave during and after the war, keeping the axis powers from America's shores. The leases should be cancelled accordingly, and charged to lease-lend.
The question of India has come up. The other day I referred to it. I quoted authority for it, the June number of the National Review, and gave the page and the book:
The Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, is in England by request of the cabinet. He has appointed June 2 as the day when the plans for handing over India are to be declared. At this eleventh hour the truth must be apparent even to those politicoes who have created the present situation, and the truth is that there is no one, neither group nor leader, to whom India can be handed over. If the Indians had been capable of self-government, if any Indian prince had been capable of imperial rule, the British would never have been established in the great sub-continent. We unified India; when we leave, the structure we have created will fall to pieces. It is this tragedy we are about to see enacted with an amount of suffering and de-
Supply-External Affairs

struetion that will make the Balkans seem peaceful. Under the viceroy, one of Queen Victoria's great grandsons, we are abandoning the helpless peasants and -workers in India to the savagery awaiting them at the hands of congress and of the Moslems. The funeral pyre is built and the Indian peoples, millions of them, are laid on it. The torch is lit, the fire is already smouldering. Let our Crippses, our Alexanders and .our Attlees look at their handiwork and realize for once what their false policies lead to. Never before in our history has there been so bitter a betrayal of trust as this English scuttle from India. But Conservatives cannot lay the whole blame for this shocking chapter in our history on the Socialists and Liberals. True, they started the fire and fanned the flames, but it was under a Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Baldwin, that the India Act, which has led to the present chaos, was passed, and it was a Conservative viceroy, Lord Halifax, who threw the mantle of his great influence over the disreputable affair. Do any of these men realize even now their personal responsibility? We doubt it. They are unaccustomed to understanding what they see and quite out of practice in regard to the appreciation of reality. The news which fills our papers daily with accounts of massacres and burnings in Lahore, Amritzar, and elsewhere is the curtain raiser of the much greater tragedy that lies ahead. The destruction of wealth is already incalculable. Money and goods are looted and burned, hospitals are full of wounded. There are no longer enough English people to keep even a semblance of peace. The few remaining British officials have -warned the viceroy that they cannot maintain order. Never was there so shabby an affair as this of our letting ourselves be tumbled out of the empire to which for two hundred years we have given order and justice.
I have about concluded. Mr. Chairman. I should like to say this, that had we not gone over the heads of the dominions we would have had an empire conference and this would never have happened, nor would we have the Indian situation, or the Palestine or the Suez situation. See what happened in India because we adopted a policy which has been against the security of this dominion, the other dominions and the empire. I can tell you this. It is a retrograde step for the people of Canada, the way things are going, and the loss of Suez is deplorable.
In conclusion, may I say that I am glad the government has given us an opportunity to discuss this. I have always been opposed to private meetings. I do not think there is anything in them. I believe the Prime Minister was quite right in what he said the other da3', that the agreements with Italy, Poland and Finland should, be studied, so far as we can study them. After that, in the recess of parliament, the executive or cabinet has full power to act for us. There is no doubt we shall be through by July 12, a fine time for

get-away day. We have been here for seven summers. Last year we were here to Labour day.
I think it is the duty of the opposition to give the government every support it can, as long as they are right. But it is also the duty of the opposition to try to express some sentiments on these matters and criticism of them. I am glad there is enough freedom in this free parliament for me to express my views, because they are not only my views, but also those of a large and intelligent body of public opinion. I have always held consistent views. I believe that the British empire, for the past two or three hundred years, has been one of the greatest influences for peace, truth and justice. I am sorry to see what is happening to it by dissolution throughout the world, because I believe that the British empire, next to the Christian church, has done more for the world and for peace, justice, religion and civilization than any other organization or agency in all history.


Benoît Michaud: Mr. Chairman, I believe I can say in about two minutes all I have to say in reply to the remarks made by members of the official opposition. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) and in passing, may I say that on a couple of occasions this afternoon I heard him described as the hon. member for Ontario-Muskoka. I am wondering whether since the redistribution committee began working on it, the name of his constituency has been changed. I knew, of course, that it had been eliminated, but I did not know it had been changed.


Gordon Graydon: Like Madawaska-Resti-gouche?


Benoît Michaud: The hon. member for
Muskoka-Ontario referred to a lack of national unity in this country. It seemed to me that he exaggerated somewhat a cleavage that is no more serious than is found in other places. As a matter of fact, I feel we are much more divided in financial matters, labour relations and controls, taxation, the united nations and other international organizations, private enterprise and nationalization. So I say that, so far as national unity is concerned, we are in no worse position than any other country.
Let us remember that in times of peace national unity is necessarily limited. In the United States, the United Kingdom and France there is considerable diversion of views on principal items of interest. We have the so-called union sacre in time of war only.

Supply-External Affairs
So I believe we should not be disturbed too much when we find that occasionally we disagree, or when Quebec disagrees with Ontario, or the maritime provinces disagree with western Canada.
I believe it was the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) who, speaking along much the same lines, dealt with what we might call the isolationist movement in some parts of the country and, in that connection, referred to Quebec. I suggest that this isolationism is not peculiar to Quebec. We saw it in the United States before the war. Indeed it was much stronger there than in Canada. Had there been no Pearl Harbor attack, I doubt very much whether the United States could have been induced to get into the last war. The same thing happened in world war I; if the Lusitania had not been sunk, perhaps they would not have entered that war.
So I do not believe we should be disturbed unduly over the so-called isolationism which may exist in some parts of Canada. On this point I would say a few words to the hon. member for Stanstead. I believe the greatest isolationist movement in Quebec at the present time is that conducted by the present premier of that province. Pick up any of the larger daily newspapers of Quebec and you will find, practically every day, one of those largesized advertisements, published under the auspices of the Union Nationale, in which a concise and vicious statement is made some what along these lines, "Duplessis gives to the people of Quebec; the Liberals give to strangers." If there could be anything designed more accurately to cause isolationism and lack of unity in Quebec, I fail to see what it is. I believe that is the worst thing that could be done so far as national unity is concerned, and so far as any isolationism may be developed.
My advice to the hon. member for Stanstead would be this. His party is on friendly terms with Premier Duplessis. Indeed, we hear of talk of possible union before the next election between the forces of Duplessis and the official opposition. If the hon. member for Stanstead is in earnest about developing a greater amount of national unity in this country, let him bring his influence to bear upon Mr. Duplessis, and induce him to cut out this most despicable kind of political propaganda.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Chairman,, first of all, may I express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the statement he has
made this afternoon. I followed it with keen interest, as I am sure all hon. members did, and I believe the people in this country will be pleased to read that statement. I support it whole-heartedly because he announced definitely this afternoon the policy of the Canadian government and its whole-hearted support of the principles of the united nations.
I have followed with interest the meetings of the external affairs committee. I believe the work that committee has done this session is a considerable improvement over what has been accomplished by it in past sessions, if I may draw an accurate impression from a reading of the minutes of the proceedings of this and previous sessions. In my opinion, the reports now issued periodically by the Department of External Affairs are excellent, and I believe it is wise to supply hon. members with reports of that type. As a member of the house may I express my appreciation of that arrangement.
I also support whole-heartedly the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and other hon. members to my right who have urged the closest possible cooperation, within the British commonwealth of nations. We often hear criticism of sections of the British commonwealth throughout the world, but I believe anyone who reads history carefully must recognize the great contribution the British commonwealth has made to the world in times of crises, and what contribution it is capable of making in the future.
I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that all empires have had some things to their credit, and that all have had disgraceful things in their records. That must follow in the nature of events as empires. But where in the history of the world would one find such a voluntary abdication of power on the part of a great nation as is found in the giving of self-government to the Indian people at this time by the government of Great Britain? Surely this indicates great progress and the possibility of development, within the framework of the British commonwealth.
I believe the people of Canada-and I have met a great number of them, of all classes,- are anxious to have the truth. They want an objective approach to all these international questions. Give the people the truth. Let parliament and officials of the government have an objective approach to all international questions, and I am sure the Canadian people will be satisfied.
One hon. member speaking this afternoon said that world peace cannot be achieved unless it is based upon a sound economic foundation in all parts of the world, or words
Supply-External Affairs

to that effect. I wish to direct my thoughts for a few moments along those lines. I believe our present international difficulties will not be solved unless we have great improvement in the economic condition of many millions of people in Europe and Asia. In that respect we hear the constant demand for the giving of materials and the lending of money to those .people. I support such demands. But I say it is useless for us just to suggest that the government lend money at a low rate of interest or to furnish materials on a lend-lease basis to other nations, unless we are willing to support words with action.
If we are to be successful in, doing anything to improve the economic position of these sub-standard peoples I maintain that we shall have to have sacrifice from all groups of the people of Canada. Industry will have to be satisfied with a lower rate of interest. Labour will have to forgo some of the immediate benefits which would flow from our productive machinery. Farmers, too, will have to make some sacrifice. But I am convinced of this, that if the government would give leadership to the people of Canada in an effective mobilization of our people, far beyond the confines of partisan politics, in support of a programme for peace based upon production, and toward the assistance of under-standard people, I believe without doubt the Canadian people would respond.
If the facts and necessities of such a programme were presented, the people of Canada would be willing and ready to -make temporary sacrifices for peace and future development. If that were done, the unity of purpose so splendidly expressed in Canada during the war would return to serve the purposes of peace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words. First of all, I want to express appreciation, which I think will be shared by all who are present, of the fact that, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has found it possible to remain during this debate. We know of his heavy responsibilities, and the fact that he has stayed indicates his realization of the great importance of these matters, not only to Canada, but to the entire world. There is one suggestion I should like to make to him in his capacity as leader of the Liberal party. As we all know, each of the parties in this house has certain free time on the national hook-up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I should like to suggest that at as early a date as possible arrangements be made for

the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) to speak to the people of Canada along the lines that he followed when speaking to this house today.
These are times when the headlines in the papers from day to day tell us of the discouraging things in the world situation. We must be realistic; we must know about these things, but it is also important to have our attention turned to fundamental things as the Secretary of State for External Affairs did in his remarks when opening this discussion. It seems to me that more attention should be paid by all the political parties in this country to international affairs in an endeavour to educate our people more about these matters and also to dispel fear by instilling faith in the things that are fundamental.
I am not going to attempt to make a poor rehash of the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I did appreciate in particular his reference to the fact that the united nations must be the cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy. I was impressed also by his reference to the fact that the source of our strength in this country and in other western countries is in our fundamental unity. I suggest that there is in those words the goal at which the entire world must aim. I suggest that we shall not have peace and the strength that goes with it until we achieve more unity among the peoples of the world.
I urge that in Canada we should place all the emphasis we can on the things that unite the peoples of the entire world. As I was listening to the remarks of the minister, I felt that there must be in his mind the wording of the charter of the united nations which is cast in these terms, "We, the peoples of the united nations." He spoke about the united nations	and	the	attempt	to achievethe collective will of all the people. In other words, there is in that approach a recognition of	the	fact	that what we aretrying to build	in	this	world is	not just a
great get-together of nation states; we are trying to achieve the will of the peoples of the entire world for peace and human accord.
The fact is that all peoples do desire peace. That is one of the things which can unite us. I urge that we place more emphasis upon that fact. It	is	easy	enough	for us to
recognize in others tendencies in the opposite direction, but I think we should go out of our -way to discover the desire for peace that is in the hearts of the people of the world around. There is also a desire all over the

Supply-External Affairs
world for economic reconstruction and economic well-being. I urge that our foreign policy and our discussions and talk about these things should centre a great deal more around that fact.
There is also a common desire among the peoples of the world to live and let live. We do not always appreciate that fact; we usually think that is our attitude, but that is not the other fellow's. The tragedy is that the other fellow thinks exactly the same way, that he is prepared to live and let live, but that we do not accord him that privilege. I suggest that we who want peace, we who pride ourselves on being in a democracy, on being in a part of the world that is free, should go out of our way, go more than half way if you like, to establish as much as we can the realization that the world around there really is this desire to live and let live. Let us place emphasis on the desire that there is among all peoples to preserve the things that are sacred to them. From our experience in our own country we know that these things vary. There are things that are sacred in different parts of our land and these things vary from part to part.
Let us place emphasis on the fact that there is a desire on the part of all peoples to resolve difficulties without resort to war. We have that desire even when things get pretty dark and sombre, as they are at the present time. It is still our hope that we can resolve our difficulties and get together. Let us realize that there is some of that same attitude on the other side. With all the effort that we must put into economic reconstruction and into devising a foreign policy that is concerned about our own welfare and our own well-being, let us do our best to keep the door open, not just for one nation or another, but for all peoples of the world. We must realize that if we can place more emphasis upon the things that unite us there is still hope that we can achieve the high ideals which bound so many nations together in time of war and which can bind us together in an attempt to win the peace.
I urge upon the Prime Minister most seriously that he consider the suggestion that I made when I rose to my feet, and also that all political parties give more attention in their work in this country to the educating of our people in foreign affairs.


Gordon Graydon: I desire to make a few general observations before this first item carries. First of all, I should like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister and to the members of the committee that I consider it a great privilege to me to have served in a humble capacity for
the last three sessions on the committee on external affairs. That service has been made happier because of the splendid chairmanship of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bra-dette). A few minutes ago the hon. member paid a generous tribute to the members of the committee. May I say that if the membership of the committee did a good job, which we hope we did in some small measure, it was largely due to the fine and diplomatic handling of the committee by the hon. member for Cochrane.
I should like to make one or two suggestions with respect to minor matters before I go on to deal with some general matters which have come to my mind. This is the first session in which we have had a separate minister of external affairs. I think that was an innovation which everyone in the country and in this parliament was glad to see brought about. Of course it was inevitable, and I fancy the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as well as everyone else who was close to the picture, realized the inevitability of a separate ministry of external affairs as soon as conditions and situations generally warranted that change. We were glad to welcome a separate ministry with a full-time minister in charge.
There is another suggestion I should like to make which perhaps may be only one of convenience. This is the first session in which we have had a full-time minister, and I think the awkwardness of his title is no doubt an embarrassment to him as it is an embarrassment to those of us who from time to time have to rise in our places and address him. More than that, it is a great embarrassment, I fancy, to anyone who has to call the undersecretary of state for external affairs even on the telephone, and by the time you get to the associate under-secretary of state for external affairs, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggests, you really have a long chain, which makes it very awkward indeed.
May I make this suggestion to the government? I know it would take legislation to change the name, but I suggest that next session we do change that name. There have been many suggestions as to what it should be. There may be objections to "Foreign Secretary" and to "Minister of Foreign Affairs", but there is no reason why the name could not be changed to either Minister of External Affairs, which he is largely called by most of us for convenience sake, or Minister of International Affairs. Such a change would be helpful as well with respect to the undersecretary, who, of course, would then be known as the deputy minister of external affairs or the deputy minister of international
Supply-External Affairs

affairs. I make that suggestion by way of perhaps a small reform, but nevertheless one which would add greatly to the convenience of the department and of the members who are from time to time interested in the affairs of that department.
'As this debate is being instituted and as it progresses, we are facing a serious condition in world affairs which needs little elaboration by anyone as humble as I in the international field. Nevertheless to a layman it is a startling and alarming condition. I am one who believes that we should not emphasize unduly the alarming and startling condition of our world affairs, because these are days when cool heads and calm judgment will be needed in the top as well as in the lower levels of international life in a way which we have never demanded or needed before. The safety and security of the firesides and the homes of the people of Canada demand that public men and people in private life should not utter statements or make decisions which will in any way make it more difficult or harder for our statesmen to keep the peace along with those of like mind all over the world. Having that in mind, may I say this, that while we must take that attitude at all times, still we must face this reality. I wonder if the members of this chamber or the people across Canada fully realize that today in the world, after two years of peace since the German collapse, there are no fewer than 19,000.000 men under arms. Not only that, but I wonder if we all realize too that exclusive entirely of other kinds of preparation, not for war perhaps but for defence, there is being paid out and budgeted for no less than S27 billion for the upkeep of these armed forces from one side of the globe to the other. That, I think, is enough of the story. Nothing further need be said to emphasize to this house the importance of Canada's position as well as the position of other nations in an uncertain and certainly a very restless and uneasy world.
So I would say to the government that I appreciate this opportunity, even though it comes late in the session, of having an expression of opinion by men and women from all sides of the house on the question of our external relations and our external policy. After all, 245 heads ought to be better than two or three. I think everyone in this chamber is anxious that, so far as we can, we should try to find common ground on at least the major points of our policy with respect to world affairs. That, of course, does not necessarily mean that there should not be the ordinary parliamentary criticism of these

estimates, because it would be a denial of the people's rights were that policy to be adopted by the opposition. Our job is to see that the government keeps on its toes and does things right.
External affairs are in a slightly different position from domestic matters. I have always been one who has felt that so far as humanly possible, whatever may be our differences at home, we should try very hard to have one voice for Canada in the councils of the world. I think we can best have that one voice by having more frequent discussions on external affairs on the floor of this house. There is no way in which we can capture the one-voice idea of parliament better than to find it from time to time through the voices of the representatives of the people reflecting what the people at home are thinking.
Do not let us make any of the mistakes of the past. Peace will not be kept in this world of today just by professional diplomats, no matter how good they may be. We have moved past those days. The peace of tomorrow will be a permanent and lasting peace only if that peace has the support and the unanimous support of the common peoples the world over.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Cochrane said a little while ago this afternoon, that he would have liked the common people to witness what went on at the united nations discussions at Lake Success and Flushing Meadows. I have long been an advocate and hope I shall continue to be an advocate of having the common peoples the world over understand other common people all over the world, because when that is done you will have all over the world the same condition that exists between two great friendly countries separated by that parallel of latitude between Canada and the United States. Just think for a moment how far a professional diplomat or a high level politician could get on either side of that boundary if he attempted to excite bad feeling between these two countries. Why, if any professional diplomat or politician or high-ranking member of the armed forces were to attempt to put any defence ramparts between this country and the United States the common people of Canada and the United States would tear them down next morning. That is the kind of peace that lasts; that is the kind of peace that is enduring; that is the kind of peace that is worth while.
I am afraid that one of the difficulties of the past has been that the common people of some lands have not always understood the

Supply-External Affairs
views and the aspirations of the common people of other lands. The sooner we do something to bring these lines of thought together, the sooner we can be assured of the permanent peace that we all desire. That brings me to this point. The House of Commons being what it is, a great forum for the discussion of domestic and external matters, this parliament ought to take into consideration the suggestion which was concurred in by the house last session, and which oame originally from the external affairs committee itself. While from time to time we spend a good deal of time on domestic matters, as we should, I do not think that in the past-and I am not sure that it is doing it now-parliament has spent enough time in discussing international affairs and exchanging ideas, having in mind the gravity of the world situation and the importance and vitality of international issues as they affect the very lives and property of our people. Unless we exchange these ideas, it makes it just that much more difficult for us to speak as a united voice in the councils of the world.
Hon. members will remember what happened in 1936. I remember very well an important journalist who was in the press gallery at the time taking notes. Being interested in statistics, that journalist made this report to his paper. During one of the great crises in world affairs which was taking place at that time, which was about the time that we were discussing the United States trade agreement, that journalist, after careful consideration and a review of the statistics of the time taken, told his paper that only twenty-seven minutes had been spent upon external affairs and over eight hours had been spent upon the tariff on asparagus. I am not one who is in any way going to detract from the importance of the tariff on asparagus, because we grow a lot of it in my part of the country, and I know how important it is, but I say, having regard to the time spent on external affairs in those days, it was little short of a scandal. It has not been very much better in recent times so far as the time that the house is actually putting in on a discussion of external affairs. Last session, while we had some twenty meetings of the external affairs committee, the sittings were limited to a certain number of hon. members. Certainly the sittings could not be regarded in any way as an opportunity for members generally to debate international matters. While we did have twenty meetings last session, only two days out of 119 sitting days were used in the discussion of international affairs. This session there has been some improvement; but, Mr. Chairman, I want the government to go farther. I would like them to adopt that recommendation of the external affairs committee of last year which was concurred in by the house. The committee recommended that a set period every week, in addition to the normal channels and avenues of debate, should be granted to the house, during which external and international affairs could be discussed on the floor in the same way as certain rights and privileges are given in connection with private bills and certain other debates that we find useful in parliament from time to time.
The time has come when parliament has to keep abreast of our changing and expanding position in external affairs. The under-secretary of state for external affairs, in an excellent report which he made to the minister, which was later tabled in the house this year, and which was repeated by the Prime Minister in his opening address this session, indicated the expansion of our external affairs work in a practical way. In 1939 this government had official representation at seventeen international conferences. In 1946 this government had official representation at ninety-eight international conferences. The whole story can be repeated, continued and enlarged by reference to the work of the external affairs committee and the expansion of its activity. While that has expanded in the way it has I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and the government if you think we are keeping abreast in parliament of the great expansion that is going on in the department, having in mind our various and multitudinous international obligations all over the world? This parliament must keep abreast; but it cannot keep abreast if only three, four or five opportunities during the session are given to the people's representatives to reflect the opinion of the people as it comes from various parts of the Dominion of Canada. I ask the government if it will not consider giving this parliament some additional opportunities during the next session.
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal. It has to do with what I have been speaking on. I refer to the question of this so-called secret session of the external affairs committee. I confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am not one of those who feel that we should be looking for difficulties at every turn, and I am not trying to criticize for criticism's sake. We should not really be going into a secret session of the external affairs committee on the question of international policy until we have at least exhausted the normal channels and avenues of discussion of policy in open session in that committee. I say that in all seriousness and with every bit of gravity that I can
Supply-External Affairs

summon to my command;. This is what has happened in the experiment of sending the estimates of the external affairs department to the standing committee. It is an experiment; it is an adventure. Having that in mind, let us see where our mistakes have been made. If the external affairs estimates are to be made the guinea pigs for the estimates of other departments-and I am pleading with the government not to overlook the importance of having other estimates sent to standing or special committees for discussion, because in the main this committee's work has been reasonably satisfactory and successful except for one particular thing-I would hope that if estimates of other departments are sent to committees this will not happen. In the committee we have not had the opportunity of discussing government policy, and in external affairs that is of tremendous importance. We have had the under-secretary of state for external affairs and we have had others in the department come before us, all of whom have been frank as they could possibly be in connection with certain matters. But what we need, in addition to that, is to have a wide discussion on the policy underlying the administration of the department. I do not think it was ever intended, that the policy of the department should be relegated to a secondary position and that we should spend most of our time in dealing with the question of the administration of the department itself. What will happen in the secret session is this. Instead of having a wide-open discussion on policy in the committee, we are to have a discussion of policy behind closed doors. I want to make that objection; I want to make that criticism, because when the Prime Minister replied to me on Monday of this week when I asked that the peace treaties be sent to the external affairs committee-and I made that suggestion because I felt that broad matters of policy would come out in the discussion of the treaties-I did not feel, nor did anyone else, that the treaties would be changed because they had already been signed; nevertheless the background and the European position generally was one which was of great public interest and value. Because of that I felt that the peace treaties might normally have come before the committee-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has referred to me. May I say to him that at this very time this house is discussing the policy of the government on external affairs. The minister has stated the government's policy in the preliminary statement he has made this afternoon. It has been referred to by several

members this afternoon as something they were glad had been stated in so clear and frank a way. In regard to the meeting referred to the other day, my remark was a mere chance remark, one might say, as to the opportunity which the committee on external affairs would have with respect to obtaining particulars as to procedure with respect to treaties in general which it has been suggested the reference of the particular treaties being discussed would permit inasmuch as the committee was having a meeting within a few days and the matter could be discussed there without any reference to the committee or the treaties themselves. My remark could not be given the significance that the government in some way was trying to disclose policy in a secret meeting. In fact, it was while I w-as on my feet that I was informed there vras a meeting the next day, and the word "secret", as far as I know, did not have any more significance that is usually attached to meetings held by the external affairs committee vdiere they discuss things freely, sometimes in secret.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think the explanation alters the picture as I understand it. The Prime Minister did make the statement that there was to be a secret meeting of the external affairs committee, and he used that as a buttress to his argument that the peace treaty should not go before that committee. He added, of course, that no one had asked for them to go to the external affairs committee before. After all, the government had not brought the resolution before the house until that time so that we did not have an opportunity to allow them to go. But the Prime Minister did not attach very great importance to the question of timing, as I remember his argument. His argument was that this secret session now would perhaps take the place of any question that might arise relative to the peace treaties and a general discussion of policy.
I think the Prime Minister has perhaps missed the point I was trying to make, and I hope this will be taken to heart by the government. It is that next year, in the external affairs department, we should have the minister before the committee more often than he appeared this year. I wish to exonerate him personally in that regard, because it is hardly fair to ask the minister to be present at all times, when he is Acting Prime Minister under the circumstances of this year, which perhaps presents some special reason for his not being there. I say that to him personally because I am not suggesting that there was any remissness on his part.

Supply-External Affairs
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should say on my own behalf that I attended the first meeting and declared that I would be at the disposal of the committee whenever invited, and I do not remember having refused any invitation.


Gordon Graydon: We did not understand that as much more than a formality, and from time to time, as the discussion came on, the minister may have been overlooked. But I will assure him this time that he will not be overlooked next session. He will have full opportunity to deal with policy.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I hope my hon. friend will not consider that the statement of my readiness to attend was any more a formality than the statement he has made this afternoon about my not being there.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps we can call it a draw.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: And the Prime Minister can be referee in this case.


Mr. MITCHELL:: It was a one-sided draw.
Mr. GRAY'DON:	And that is a one-sided
opinion. The Prime Minister a moment ago talked about a policy that had been laid before the committee today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. One of my objections to the statement, in criticism of the minister this afternoon, was that he did not lay before this committee any detailed policy of the government on many of the most important matters upon which the country would expect a policy to be laid iown. For instance, this country is interested n the reaction, as well as in the policy, of he government toward the proposed PanAmerican invitation. This country is interested also in the recent discussions which call for some hemispheric meeting in Brazil a little later this year. The country is interested, further, in the whole question of our relations with the Soviet Union. Two points in particular, as regards these relations, are first, that which was raised by the minister himself a few days ago with respect to Canadian citizens who are in that country and are not allowed to come to Canada, and, second, the whole question of our diplomatic relations with Russia, having in mind that neither country, now or for some considerable time, has had a normal diplomatic relationship so far as the senior diplomatic posts are concerned.
None of these things was touched upon in the minister's statement. He may not have attempted in any way to gloss them over, jnd I appreciate the fact that he said the
cornerstone of our international policy was, of course, to be adherence to the united nations organization. I was glad indeed that he made the statement he did, but there are many other matters which ought to have engaged the minister's attention when he was making a statement that was supposed to be on a question of the policy of the government.
During the last week we have come closer as nations to a parting of the ways than perhaps we have been at any time since before the last war, but I share the view that has been expressed on one or two occasions this afernoon that, after all, we should not give up. We should not be discouraged by the difficulties which arise and the obstacles which have to be overcome. But one thing that greatly concerns me-and I suppose it greatly concerns everyone in the country- is this. In our relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics I do not think we always get to the real root of the trouble that sometimes seems to arise. I say openly and frankly that, in my opinion, one of the great difficulties is that, so long as any nation engages in ideological paratrooping with fifth columnist activities, it makes it very difficult for nations to sit around the conference table. Certainly it would make it quite difficult for me, if I were sitting at a conference table, to feel that someone sitting opposite was anxious that the government I was representing ought to be changed to another system altogether.
That is not the neighbourly thing that we expect. As I said in this house a year ago-and I repeat it now, because as time has gone on it has emphasized itself more and more in my mind-I think the way for nations to get along is to do what people on the farm always did in your community, Mr. Chairman, and in mine. The best neighbours in farming communities are those who are always ready to help you when you are in trouble and who are there, when you are in distress, ready to do a good deed at the right time.


Mr. JAQUES:: As well as mind their own business.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: May I be permitted to proceed? It is difficult. I cannot hear what hon. members are saying.


Mr. McIVOR:: It does not matter.


Gordon Graydon: I was going to say this so far as farm neighbours are concerned, that not only are those the attributes of a good
Supply-External Affairs

neighbour, but the people next farm were never regarded as good neighbours if they were trying to interfere in your domestic household. I think that is a lesson which countries all over the world should take, because nations are not different from individuals. After all, we are all just groups of people, the world over. Human nature runs through all peoples, classes, races and colours. Having that definitely in mind, I believe we could be assured much more easily of relationships of a permanently peaceful character throughout this whole world if the nations of the world, in the days that lie ahead, would leave alone other nations' systems of government and ways of life. That is one of the things which has impressed me as being almost a prime essential in order that nations may have friendly relationships in the days that lie ahead. I hope we shall reach the stage where we shall have a permanent truce with respect to that kind of ideological aggression which seeks to overturn the systems of government which are enjoyed at the moment by other nations that wish to be friendly, and which they feel is best.
I have not much more time, but I just want to say this other word, while we are talking about the heavily endowed security council and all our enforcement measures of power and strength, and so on. I am not so sure that that alone will ever guarantee world peace. If we are to remove war, we must remove the root causes of war. Of course we shall not all agree in some respects as to what are the root causes of war; nevertheless I think that is one of the things that are of great importance. Having in mind the competing ideologies of the world, I think the democratic way of life must display, exemplify and exhibit to the other types of ideology that, after all, our way of life is founded on the cornerstone of economic and social justice; that democracy does guarantee freedom to the individual, but that totalitarianism denies it; that under a democratic way of life, the ordinary common man or woman the world over has a better chance to succeed, a better chance to enjoy an abundant life.than he or she has under any state of regimentation, oppression or totalitarianism which has so far been known to the world. I think those are things, along with the necessity of seeing to it that armed aggression does not threaten the peace of the world, which are important. Men and women in every democratic land have a duty to see to it that there are no drones in the democratic beehive, so that we, in the end, may show to the world that we have the answer to the happiness, contentment and economic success of people every-

where in a greater way than has any other new system which has so far been evolved. That way lies security; that way lies happiness; and, Mr. Chairman, that way lies peace.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would express my deep appreciation for the courtesies and assistance extended to me by a number of Canadian representatives whom I met while visiting the United Kingdom and several other countries of Europe. I believe that too few Canadians appreciate the tremendous responsibilities which our foreign representatives must carry. I had the privilege of meeting with a number of them and discussing the important problems of the day. I must say I was most favourably impressed by the calibre of men the Secretary of State for External Affairs has sent out, and of course I approve those who were in the various countries before he took over.
During my several weeks in London, I met Mr. N. A. Robertson, whom we all know, Canada's high commissioner in London. He is dependable and able, and is giving a good account of himself. I believe he is doing a good job for Canada, and if he is left in London long enough he will gain valuable experience from experienced British statesmen, which, in turn, will bring benefits to Canada.
In his first secretary, Mr. J. W. Holmes, he has an able, young and dependable general assistant. He also has with him as third secretary a young man named P. T. Molsor Mr. Molson is a likeable young man with a fine personality. While I listened to a meeting of the intergovernmental committee, I noted that Mr. Robertson took young Mr. Molson with him so that he might gain the benefit of experience. It is good for Canada to have our young men in foreign service benefit from all the experience they can get.
I would mention two other names. First, there is H. W. Kember, our passport officer, who does a great deal for every Canadian calling at Canada House. I would mention, too. Mrs. Western, -who, I believe, is a former Canadian and who, too, is doing a good deal for many Canadians who visit Canada House.
Then, when I was leaving London for Berlin I had the privilege of travelling in the same aircraft as the head of the Canadian

Supply-External Affairs
military mission in Berlin, General Maurice Pope. General Pope impressed me most favourably.


Jean-François Pouliot: He was born in Riviere du Loup.


Anthony Hlynka: He really has a thorough grasp of international problems, and takes a broad view. He does not believe that Canada should take a narrow view on any matter, but that we should be ready to play our part. General Pope was kind enough to invite me to his home for luncheon, and in the evening I had the pleasure of attending a gathering at which were representatives of fourteen nations. I had the privilege of meeting them and discussing with them those problems in which we were all interested.
General Pope had with him Professor S. M. Scott who, I understand, taught history for several years in one of the United States universities. and who was asked by the Canadian government to assist General Pope in Berlin.
Then, there was Colonel J. G. McQueen, formerly of Medicine Hat, Alberta. This young man is doing a fine job. He is most efficient, and I am only sorry that Canada has not in foreign service a greater number of men of the calibre of those I met in Berlin and throughout Germany.
I also met a young gentleman named J. A. McCordick, who, I believe, was first drafted by the Department of External Affairs in Canada. I believe he will make a name for himself, because he has a keen brain, he is young and most likeable. He is the type we should train for service in foreign countries.
In my view Canada should begin to pay a little more attention to foreign affairs. I realize that we are only beginners in the field, and I appreciate the fact that the minister took over this portfolio when Canada faced many important problems.
AVhile I should not like to subscribe 100 per cent to everything done by the department, or to everything it may do, I believe the minister is doing a good job in his department. AVhile travelling in Europe, I found that Canada was not represented at all points at which she should be represented, bearing in mind our financial contribution and the contribution by way of man-power we made during the war. I believe there should be more of our young men holding the various positions in such organizations as UNRRA. the intergovernmental committee, and the like. AVherever I went I found very few* Canadians. At. times I would travel for a week before meeting one. I feel that we made a mistake by practically pulling out
our men as soon as the war was over. Young Canadians who fought in the war should have been given the chance of getting experience with these organizations, and they should be given the necessary training to fit them for the future.
Our representative in Rome is Lieutenant-Colonel James P. Manion, son of the late Doctor Manion whom all members knew. Mr. Manion is our commercial representative in Rome and he was the only Canadian I met there. My impression was that he was capable and is the type of man who should be retained in the service. I was shocked, if I may use that term, to find that Canada had no embassy in Italy. Mr. Majnion had a staff of two or three people and that was all. Canada should have an embassy in a country like Italy, even if that embassy served only as a listening post. Surely it is important that Canada should have a representative in the important centre of the Catholic world. Like other hon. members, I never paid much attention to the matter; I took it for granted that we had our representation there, but when I arrived I found that there were no Canadians in Italy. I recommend to the minister that he do establish an embassy in Rome.
From there I went to Paris, France, where I met Major-General G. P. Vanier, head of the Canadian embassy in Paris. He also made a fine impression on me because he is the type of man who commands the respect of all who meet him. He is courteous and well versed in matters that come within his scope. His capable first secretary is Mr. Jean Chap-delaine, a young man who, I believe, comes from Montreal.
There is something else that I noticed while I was in these countries. AVe seem to treat our representation in foreign countries as temporary rather than as a permanent service. For instance, the Canadian ambassador in London has not a permanent residence. He is forced to rent such homes as are available, and of course that works a hardship on any representative who must get acquainted with the people. This applied also to our representative in Italy who had to spend weeks and weeks before he could find a home he could rent. I am not certain what arrangements have been made in Paris and other places, but 1 take it that we have not purchased homes for our representatives there either.
I should now like to make a few general suggestions. Canada should train young people, and of course those of mature age also, for foreign service. I want to congratulate the minister upon the wisdom he has
Supply-External Affairs

shown in putting through a measure to provide pensions for our representatives abroad. The only shortcoming that I can find in that legislation is that these benefits are not extended to all the personnel in our foreign service. If we want to encourage these young men to serve Canada in this field we must guarantee their future. A number of the young men who spoke to me told me they felt that their futures were insecure, that they did not know whether they would stay or leave. These pension benefits should be extended to every person who serves in foreign countries.
I am repeating what I said, that we should establish embassies in countries where we feel such representation would do a certain amount of good. We should strengthen those already in existence. There is plenty of room for strengthening our embassies. Canada is new in this field; we cannot begin to compare our experience with that of the British, but the only way to learn is to apply ourselves to the task.
I repeat again the suggestion that Canada should build permanent homes for the heads of our various embassies and provide accommodation for their assistants. That is a necessity too, which will encourage these young people to stay in that field.
I should like to offer two or three other suggestions to the minister. One is in regard to the emphasis which Canada places on the united nations. I have no objection whatsoever to Canada supporting the united nations and staking a small card or two on that organization. I do not think it would do us a great deal of harm if we risk a deuce or a trey or a four-spot on it, but I would reserve the aces and kings and queens and place them on a surer bet. I would reserve these high cards and place them on the British commonwealth of nations. It is a fine thing to dream and speak of the united nations. I have made the statement in this house before that I do not believe there is such a thing as the united nations, because there is more disunity among them now than there has ever been before. But the term "united nations" is used perhaps cleverly in this regard to cover disagreements, or perhaps because it is the objective towards which the various nations would like to go. It is a fine thing to support new ideals and aim at noble objectives and perhaps think of the time when some of the problems of today may be solved, but at the same time it seems to me that neither the mentality of the nations of the world nor their problems have changed 
very much, and for that reason we must place our most important cards on the British commonwealth of nations.
I should like to make one more point. It does strike me as strange that a certain group of people now consider that they can no longer support the United Kingdom because of a change of government there. That seems to me to be the wrong attitude to take. It is an unret vist>c attitude; it is not the right stand to take. Nor was it right for another group to say that they did not want to have anything to do with the United Kingdom so long as a certain form of government was in power there. It seems to me that Canadians generally should be bigger than that and that their loyalty, if you like, should be to the people of the United Kingdom and not to one form of government or another in that country. The form of government in the United Kingdom can change because one government can be put out and another put in in its place, and the same thing applies to Canada. So I say that various parties in this house would be well advised to consider, in the first place, the British people, and not the form of government that may be m office there today and be put out tomorrow. So my own stand has been in the past and still is and, I am sure, will continue to be to approve and have every confidence in the British commonwealth of nations and in the British people.
I should like to make one final suggestion to the minister and that is that Canadians, at least those Canadians who occupy important diplomatic posts and those in various departments of the government, should take more interest in the various peoples of the world and study their background and their history and their problems in order that we may better be able to deal with both their problems and our own. I find that Canadians generally-this is no reflection on the people of Canada or on the civil servants or representatives-do not make a deep study of the history or the origin of the various peoples of Europe and their problems, but rather feel that we are living on this continent and we are not going to bother with Europe. As a matter of fact I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) two or three years ago on a matter that touched many Canadians deeply. It was about- displaced persons. The Prime Minister 'replied, in effect, that that was a European problem and did not concern Canada ver3' much. It seems to me that if Canada is to play a more important part in the affairs of .

Supply-External Affairs
the world we should be interested in European problems, because many of these problems are tied in with our own. I am satisfied that if Canada continues to lead the so-called smaller nations of the world in the fight for what are really and truly human rights and fundamental freedoms there will no doubt be a great future for this nation, and if we cooperate with the British commonwealth of nations and with our great neighbour to the south of us and other nations there is hope that the world will achieve the objective at which it aims.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Chairman, I rather think the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had more than his share of speeches to listen to today, even though they have been good ones. I should like to ask one or two questions just for a change. First of all, with regard to this situation as it has developed in Europe within the last week or two, I think no one will disagree with the statement that those happenings have been of the utmost importance to the whole world, including Canada. It does seem to me that we shall never get world affairs straightened out until we have Europe again on its feet, and I wish the minister would tell the committee just what the position there is from the point of view of the Canadian government, and also tell us whether there is any way in which Canada can help solve that problem. Great Britain and France called several other nations into conference to get things on a more satisfactory basis, and1 the United States has offered to give great help for that purpose. It would seem that there should be some way in which Canada too could lend a hand. When the minister has answered that question I propose to ask one or two about the Pacific, but I should be glad if he would give us, first, some statement with regard to the European situation and Canada's attitude in regard thereto.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid that the hon. member has set for me a task that it is practically impossible to discharge.


Howard Charles Green: I mean only recent developments in Europe.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The recent developments have been very important and interesting. There has apparently been a feeling expressed in the United States that Europe should show some concrete desire to put itself in order and to contribute to that with everything that its resources make available. I think we were all very favourably impressed 83166-326
when we heard that the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom was taking the lead in trying to bring together those who could draw up a concrete plan that would show some prospect of being successful. Apparently the three foreign ministers, Mr. Bevin, Mr. Bidault, and Mr. Molotov had serious discussions, and Mr. Molotov does not appear to have shared the views of the others, and does not appear to have felt that what they were proposing to do would be apt to bring about the desired result.
From what we gather from the newspapers -and that is all I have to go on for the present time-Mr. Bevin and Mr. Bidault feel that the possibilities are sufficient to warrant their attempting, even without Mr. Molotov, to draw up a plan that will show some reasonable prospect of stabilizing the European situation. I am sure we, on this side of the Atlantic, would all have been more optimistic about the future if we had evidence that there was going to be a genuine desire to cooperate between all three great powers; but in view of the unwillingness of one of them, I think there is reason for us to hope that the other two can still achieve results which will help to bring about that restoration of the European situation which is, I think, almost indispensable to the prosperity of the whole world.


Howard Charles Green: And possibly to the peace of the world.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And possibly, even probably, to the durable peace of the world; because we can hardly hope for a durable peace that is not at the same time the kind of peace that will make reasonably prosperous conditions for humanity. It is unfortunate that there should not be working together all those whose interests seem to be the same, but I hope that there will still be a large number, and that it will not take the form that can be looked upon by any other group as aggressive.


Howard Charles Green: Of course there was no aggressive intent at all.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure that there is no other desire than the desire to bring about the betterment of conditions of those who inhabit the European continent and the British isles. I hope that it will be possible for some plan to be worked out which will be beneficial to the largest number of states. The more there are benefited by it, the surer will be the foundation for our hopes for durable peace resulting from it.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not deal with the Canadian position. I hope the Cana-

Supply-External Affairs

dian government is willing to do everything possible to help Great Britain, France and the nations which join with them to rehabilitate Europe. Apparently the Americans have taken a fine stand in their offer to help. Is it a fact that the Canadian government is also prepared to help?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, I should not like to make any other declaration of policy of the Canadian government than would conform with decisions that have already been taken. Canada has never 'been backward in its contributions to the betterment of world conditions. The only concrete problem that the government has had to deal with has been with respect to post-UNRRA relief. I should not say that is the only one; that is the most recent one. That was a concrete problem. It has been dealt with and the Prime Minister has already announced to the house that in the supplementary estimates the government will recommend a vote of $20 million which is practically in the same relation to the vote of the United States congress that our contributions to UNRRA were to the contributions of the great American republic to UtNRRA.
With , respect to displaced persons, we have even preceded action by our United States friends. The proposals of the United States government have not been formulated in any such fashion as would enable our government to make a concrete decision about it. There is no doubt that Canada realizes that it is as much concerned as is the great republic in the restoration of good conditions throughout the world.


Mr. BROOKS:: Has Canada been asked by the United States to assist in any way in her latest proposals for the reestablishment of Europe, the Marshall plan?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; there have been no representations made to Canada as to what concrete action it could take to be of assistance in respect of the implementation of that plan which has, of course, to remain rather vague until the European nations themselves have surveyed their situation, and assessed the resources they have themselves and how they can be used for the general welfare and what additions would have to be made to enable a reasonably satisfactory result to be achieved.
There have been declarations by the Secretary of State and by other spokesmen of the administration, but they have had necessarily to be in very general terms. They are not in such form as would make it possible for them to make any concrete suggestion to anybody else.


Howard Charles Green: I take it that the intention is to cooperate to the full.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No one minister can. by declarations in the house commit the government to any line of action. Speaking as one of the members of the government, all I can add is to remind the committee that Canada has never been backward over the last several years in its contributions to whatever measures were devised as being proper to help the situation of the world at large. That has been the attitude of the Canadian government, of the Canadian parliament and of the Canadian people, and so far I have not found that any of us have regretted what we have done, nor have I found any evidence anywhere of any desire to follow any other line of conduct. I cannot go beyond that, because no specific matter has come up for actual decision by the government.


Howard Charles Green: I thank the minister for his statement. Then, with regard to the Pacific, nothing at all has been said today about the position in the Pacific area and it would be helpful if the minister could give an explanation of the present position there and of Canada's policy. For example, I would ask him to deal with the far eastern advisory commission on which Canada has membership. I should like to know what work that commission has been doing, whether there have been any reports by the commission, and, if so, the general tenor of those reports. I believe there is also an allied council for Japan on which Canada has a member or at least an observer. I would ask the minister to let us have a statement wfth regard to the work of that body. Then, there is the question of the possible treaty with Japan. The minister advised us a few days ago that Canada was to be represented at the commonwealth conference in Canberra next month, the purpose being to discuss peace terms for Japan. Will he let us have a report with regard to that situation and also with regard to the question of reparations? Apparently there are to be some reparations from Japan. I should like to know whether Canada is making a claim for a share of such reparations.
Finally has any thought been given to the setting up of a regional organization in the Pacific? I believe there is what is called a South Pacific commission, the members of which are Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, France and the Netherlands. Their function is to deal with the territories south of the equator. Presumably they have nothing to do with the territories north of the equator. In addition, there have been press reports with regard

Supply-External Affairs
to the possible formation of a Pacific economic and defence council. I cannot find out whether those reports are correct or not.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: What was the last?


Howard Charles Green: The Pacific economic and
defence council. I saw that in an editorial in the Gazette on September 6 of last year. The editorial was headed "Canada blind to Pacific obligations". It stated that a preliminary conference had been called, leading to the ultimate formation of a Pacific economic and defence council to promote peace and industrial development in that area, and that originally the discussions would be limited to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, but that it was intended to invite the United States, France, the Netherlands and Portugal. That may have collapsed; nothing further may have been done. On the Pacific slope of Canada we are very much interested in the Canadian policy for the Pacific area, and I would ask the minister to make a statement on these subjects.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	With respect to
the far eastern commission, the hon. member knows that this commission is made up of representatives of Australia, Canada, China, France, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States. It has met regularly in Washington through the past year and has continued to perform its functions in accordance with the terms of reference laid down at the Moscow meeting of foreign ministers in December, 1945. Policy decisions have been reached on a variety of subjects, including a new Japanese constitution, interim reparations removal programme, the level of postwar economic Japanese life, trade relations with the allied powers, trade unions, education, war criminals, aliens in Japan, and Japanese atomic research. These policy decisions have been the basis for directives issued by the United States government to the supreme commander for the allied occupying forces in Japan. Canada is represented on the commission by the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. Wrong, and by his alternate, Mr. R. E. Collins, a member of his staff in Washington.
With respect to the reparations team, following the receipt of the invitation extended to member countries of the far eastern commission by the supreme commander of the allied powers, the Canadian government, in February, 1947, established in Tokyo a three-man team to look after Canadian interests in Japan with respect to restitution- and reparations. This team is under the chairmanship 83166-326J
of Mr. J. E. Kenderdine, special representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce on the staff of the Canadian liaison commission in Tokyo. The allied council is a military-control body on which Canada is not represented.


Howard Charles Green: What nations are on that
council?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The United States,
Russia, France, the United Kingdom. I believe there is one representative for the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and India. There is one representative for those four commonwealth nations. Canada's liaison officer and the official through whom the Department of External Affairs is kept informed about what is going on, is Mr. Norman, who has been stationed in Tokyo for several months now.
The hon. member asked about the Canberra conference; that has now been arranged- to be a conference on ministerial level; that is to say, each one of the commonwealth nations is expected to have a delegation headed by a minister.


Howard Charles Green: Who is going from Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That has not yet been determined. For several weeks past the Canadian government has been giving much of its time and- attention to the proceedings of the Canadian parliament, and since that conference is for the end of August, it was felt that we could reasonably hope to reach prorogation- early enough to have some time to arrange it thereafter. There are several requirements that will have to be met, and all those, except the one that has been announced so far, will have to be considered together in making the arrangements. It has already been announced that the Minister of National Health and Welfare -(Mr. Martin) will be going to the economic and social council, which is in July. That had to be decided- in advance because the date was earlier than the others. There will be other engagements for ministers which will have to be considered at the same time consideration is being given to the selection of a candidate for this Canberra conference. The Canberra conference is -preparatory and- exploratory. The commonwealth nations are getting together to communicate to each other the information they respectively have and to explore the situation; but not at all, to use a local expression, in the spirit of ganging-u-p to make their views prevail. They are going to discuss, as they do constantly by dispatches and correspondence, their respective interests, so that each will know what data is available to the others and what repercussions
Supply-External Affairs

each may expect on his own situation from any given decision. It seemed to be proper that that preliminary and exploratory meeting be held in the Pacific area because it had to do with the situation which was of more concern to Australia and New Zealand.


Howard Charles Green: But it is of great concern to the west coast.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:, Yes, it is of great concern, but it appeared to us to be of even greater *concern to Australia and New Zealand-[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: Oh, that is right.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: -and that they had grounds for urging that the meeting should *be in their zone rather than in any other zone.
On this matter of the South Pacific commission, I must say that I remember that some months ago there were dispatches in the newspapers about it, but I do not think it was ever set up. There have been in the department no official communications about it.


Howard Charles Green: Has any thought been given to the setting up of a Pacific regional organization under the united nations?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No doubt there has been thought given to it, but- I cannot say that is one of the most probable solutions which will be agreed upon for the Pacific situation. From everything I have been able to see, there is no doubt that the allies are firm in their desire to establish conditions under which Japan is not apt again to become a menace to peace in the Pacific. As to the methods which will be adopted to that end, the matter has not progressed sufficiently for me to be able to speak with any definiteness about it. It may be felt that something similar to the system which will have been devised to prevent Germany from again becoming a threat to the peace of Europe will serve as a model for what will be adopted with respect to Japan. I think the most that can be said at the present time is that there appears to be substantial unanimity on the determination that the proper machinery must be found to achieve that end.


Howard Charles Green: Is it clear mow that the peace conference for Japan is to be an eleven-nation conference? Has that yet been settled?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, that has not yet been settled; though there has not yet arisen anything which would appear to prevent effect being given to the desires of the United Kingdom, the United States and other nations that that foe the foody used for the purpose of drafting the treaty. That does not mean that

our Russian allies may not have the same views with respect to the eastern situation as they have expressed, 'and so far adhered to, with respect to the German peace settlement. But the eastern situation has not developed to the point where that has become an expressed statement of soviet policy.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has mentioned the work of the far eastern advisory commission, on which Canada has a member. Apparently we get no reports from that commission. Would it not foe possible for those reports to be made available? I take it from what the minister says that they are reporting direct to the United States government. But it is not a United States commission; it is a commission composed of representatives of various nations. Surely we should be entitled to get reports from the commission in just the same way as the United States government gets those reports.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We get communication of the decisions which are communicated to the United States government, so that the United States government may give directives to its commander in chief; but they have always been marked "confidential", and we could not attempt to publish them without the consent of all the members of the commission. Even if it were felt desirable that some portions foe made public, there would no doubt be some portions of those directives which it would not be felt proper to make public until they had been carried out. They are the kind of directives which, through the far eastern commission, the eleven nations communicate to their representative; because, of course, General MacArthur not only represents the United States government but acts for the united nations, and these recommendations have been regarded as matters which are not for publication.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister look into the possibility of making some sort of reports available for the Canadian public and the Canadian press? I dare say very few people in Canada realize that Canada has any representation at all on that advisory committee. The general impression is that the United States is in sole charge in Japan. From the point of view of informing our own people and keeping them advised of what is going on, I think some method should be devised by which at least portions of the reports of that commission may be made available to the Canadian public. We are a Pacific as well as an Atlantic and Arctic power, and it is important that this information get out to the public.

Supply-External Affairs
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, but it does not even get out to the United States public. I can say this much; there is not always immediate unanimity as to the directives to be given to General MacArthur. There are decisions arrived at; then there are directives which are given to him, and he announces in Japan the policy he is going to implement. That is about as much as the public gets.
I can have inquiries made to see if the far eastern commission could not have a report which would be available to the public of the eleven nations it represents. But it would have to be something agreed to by the commission itself. We know there are many matters of administration upon which at the start there may be divergence of views. Finally a decision is arrived at, and directives are given on behalf of the commission to General MacArthur who announces the policy to be implemented in Japan. However I shall see if it would be possible to have a report which would be available to the public of all the nations represented on this far eastern commission.


Howard Charles Green: We hope to take part in the peace conference with Japan, and I think it is essential that the Canadian people should have just as much information as possible with regard to the facts on which the peace treaty will be based.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The importance of having in advance information for the public at large is also a matter concerning which there is not unanimity of opinion. There are many who feel that the attempt to determine peace treaties with the satellite powers at Paris, in the full light of publicity, was not helpful to the achievement of the best possible results.


Howard Charles Green: I did not mean the full light of publicity; I meant that we should have as much information as possible.


Mr. QUELCH:: Could the minister say what are some of the main features of the Marshall plan? For instance, would it entail Russia's becoming a party to the Bretton Woods agreement in the same way as Great Britain was forced to become a party to it in order to obtain a loan? Would it also entail Russia's agreeing to a policy of non-discrimination in the same way as Great Britain was forced to, in order to get help with respect to the United States loan?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I cannot say anything more about the Marshall plan than I have learned from the newspapers. I am not saying I did not get some confidential reports from our representatives in Washington, but we have had no official communication from the United States government as to what the Marshall plan is, and I cannot venture to state here what I think the conditions are.


Victor Quelch: May I say that I believe that, until we know what the conditions are, we are not in a position to judge as to the actions of Russia. If part of that agreement meant that she had to become a party to the Bretton Woods agreement or that she had to agree to a policy of non-discrimination, then I think Russia can be complimented upon having viewed it as she did.
Can the minister tell the committee what is chiefly responsible for holding up agreement at the Geneva conference today? I remember when the nations first met we were given to understand that they were likely to reach agreement in a few weeks. Now it is going on for some months, and still no agreement has been reached.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My hon. friend's .mpression differed from mine. From the very start I was told by our representatives who had returned from the preparatory conference [DOT] in London that they expected the conference would last until September, and they were looking to the date of the meeting of the general assembly as something which, toward the end, would help bring matters to a head.


Victor Quelch: Can the minister say what the main point of disagreement is?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know that there is any disagreement. I understand that for several weeks there have been negotiating teams dealing with specific requests of one country or another for modification of tariff arrangements. I am told that at one time there were forty-six different teams which were working on these individual items.


Victor Quelch: When the minister says that what he understood is different from what I understood', let me say that we are dependent upon the press. We have never been able to get much information from the government as to what has occurred there, so that naturally we are in the dark.
Can the minister say whether or not any consideration has been given to trying to reach some form of agreement with the United States along lines similar to those of the Hyde Park agreement, in order to deal with the adverse exchange position of today?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid I would have to see the terms of that question before
Supply-External Affairs

venturing to answer it. I can say, however, that the Canadian and United States authorities have been discussing for several weeks the difficulties arising throughout the world out of the shortage, on the part of consumers, of United States dollars, and have been examining what they consider to be every possible angle of things that can be done to help relieve that situation.
The Hyde Park agreement is something which it is rather difficult to define in terms sufficiently specific to say that another thing resembles it or that in some particulars it differs from it.


Victor Quelch: May I clarify my question? About two weeks ago I read a press dispatch to the effect that the United States might possibly buy Canadian wheat to ship to Europe, in the same way that she bought Canadian munitions to supply Europe. In that way the United States would be supplying us with American dollars while providing goods to Europe. In other words, instead of our providing goods to Europe and accepting sterling we would be supplying via America and receiving American dollars, which would greatly help to offset the difficulty in obtaining American dollars.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That specific form has never been officially discussed.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOI8 POULIOT (Temis-couata):	I have a double question to ask.
What did we gain in the past two years from our association with the united nations? Secondly, what are the serious grounds, if any, for future hopes? I ask these questions because I have met many people who have told me the united nations are our only hope.
I have asked them, "Do you believe in the government of Russia, of France, of England- as the government exists now-of the United States or of China?" They have said no,' when the question has been -asked with respect to each of those individual countries. They do not agree with the governments of each of the separate countries, -but they are ready to accept the government of the whole of them, il ask them, "Why do you say that?" And they reply that there is nothing else. A stone has never been a life-preserver.
I understand the difficulties we face there, and I will tell the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), for whom I have the greatest admiration, and who has asked some timely questions-and I :ongratulate the minister upon having answered them so well:- that when he wants to know, not only the Canadian position in international affairs, but also the foreign situation at large, he has

only to read newspapers such as the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the New York Sun, or some of the Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver or Toronto papers. They will give him full information. He will be -able to get more information from the papers than he can get in -the house. Strangely enough, it has happened that I could not get, through official channels, some official papers which were published verbatim in United States papers.
I will tell him something else about representation. He may have read the book by a former leader of his party, entitled, "Canada and the Commonwealth" by Sir Robert Borden. Sir Robert referred to the Washington conference held after the first war, and he said that South Africa was mad because the dominions had not been invited; it was only the -big powers. There was a compromise, and Mr. Balfour, who represented the United Kingdom, represented a couple of the dominions, particularly South Africa. I do not see -any use in such dual representation.
I will draw the attention of -my hon. friend to something else. The ideology of Canada and the ideologies of the Big Five are entirely different. The Big Five are imperialistic powers. They all want to get more and more. Great Britain is trying to save -all she can.


Howard Charles Green: I d-o -not think so.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend has a
pious view of the whole thing, but I have my own opinion. He may be right or I may be right.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps we are both wrong.


Jean-François Pouliot: France is fighting to save Indo-China. China is trying to save all she can of Mongolia and other parts of the country. What about Russia? My hon. friend will not tell me that the United States is not an imperialistic power. So we have five imperialistic powers, or perhaps we may except Great Britain for the sake of argument. But -at least four of the five are imperialistic. They decide everything; we decide nothing. We have to take it for granted that they are right when they quarrel and set a bad example to the world. I think it was the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) who said that "united" is a false label for the united nations; that it should be "disunited".
Foreign policy is a bluff from beginning to end. For instance, take the Canadian high commissioner in England. What difference is there between the position of the present incumbent and that of Sir Charles Tupper when Canada was described as a colony, as she

Supply-External Affairs
should be now? There was no difference at all. At the time of Sir Charles Tupper the high commissioner reported to the colonial office. After we went into the commonwealth they did a great thing; the colonial office was split in two, one branch being the dominions office and the other one the colonial office. From then on, the high commissioner of Canada got in touch with the dominions office. They now propose to change it to this commonwealth relations business. Is that being done to please us? Is it being done to satisfy Canada? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that Canada had been informed about the change but had never asked for it. It is done because India is no longer an empire and the King of Great Britain no longer can describe himself as the Emperor of India. From now on, India will be a commonwealth and Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru and the Moslems of India have all agreed to the change. It is just a change of words. There has been nothing more than changes of words since the beginning of the British empire at the time of Queen Victoria.


Howard Charles Green: That is where you are wrong.


Jean-François Pouliot: I may be wrong and my hon friend may be wrong, but I want to try to make my point. I want to try to convert him, although I may not succeed. I want to explain my views to him. British foreign policy with regard to the dominions has been bluff from beginning to end. I will start, first, with the Statute of Westminster. As a lawyer, my hon. friend knows very well that the main provisions of a law are never found in the preamble.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not forget that he is a Tory.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps he will have a different interpretation of the law because of that; nevertheless he is a fine fellow.


Howard Charles Green: Do not try to convert me, for you will be wasting your time and the time of the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would not be wasting my time. I have converted Orangemen, and I have letters to that effect written in French by their own hands. I am very persevering. One way to gain the attention of an audience is to address one individual. When you convince that individual he radiates his conviction. That is the best way to turn a noisy meeting into a sympathetic one. Let us consider the Statute of Westminster which was passed in the first year of the reign of the late Lord Bennett. I will not try to convince my hon. friend as a Progressive Conservative member of parliament; I will simply appeal
to his intelligence and knowledge of the law.
He knows very well that the preamble of a statute is nothing more than a description of the provisions which follow. There is nothing in the following provisions with regard to Canada except the abolition of the colonial laws validity act. That does very little, because the disallowance provisions are still in our constitution which permit the nullification of legislation passed by this parliament. The disallowance provisions are enough; it was not necessary to have the colonial laws validity act.
By means of the Statute of Westminster they tried to create an optical illusion that the dominions were getting more than they had before. It was drafted by Lord Passfield and some other Fabians with the same ideology. They set out to create an optical illusion for the representatives of the dominion. Since Mr. Bennett did not believe in the commonwealth but in the British empire, he was satisfied with it. It was an effort to put something over on the colonies of the British empire. They ware given the illusion that they were gaining some rights when in reality they were gaining nothing. In French we say, "Un beau rien tout neuf"; the new nothing, the new nonentity. Notwithstanding the suggestion of some nationalists or the celebrations over the passing of this Statute of Westminster, the fact remains, as my hon. friend knows very well, that there is a provision in the body of the act to the effect that nothing in the British North America Act is changed.


Howard Charles Green: I feel guilty for wasting the time of the committee by bringing this lecture on it and on myself. Does the hon. member question the fabt that the British government would pass any sort of amending legislation that Canada requested with regard to that statute or any other law having to do with Canada? Is that not a fact?


Jean-François Pouliot: First, I want to tell my hon. friend that I am not lecturing him; I am simply expressing my views, after deep study of the matter. Answering his question, I will tell him that imperialism is not so much in the United Kingdom as it is in the minds of colonial Canadians, and that is precisely because colonial Canadians have an inferiority complex in regard to the United Kingdom. They consider themselves the little ones who are not on a footing of equality with the great geniuses of the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: Where do you find Canadians like that?


Jean-François Pouliot: Right here in the House of Commons. I have not to go outside the
Supply-External Affairs

house; I find them right here. They do not realize that they have an inferiority complex concerning everything that is done overseas. I remember when some anti-nazis were put in concentration camps in Britain during the war after Dunkirk, when the British made a round-up of all the people of foreign extraction on the soil of Great Britain without any distinction. These anti-nazis were put in concentration camps in Britain and later were transferred here. One day in the house I asked information about that move from Colonel Ralston, and another minister told me that he knew nothing about it. Yet the camps were under Colonel Ralston's jurisdiction. I asked the minister how it came about that he knew nothing about these anti-nazi prisoners in concentration camps in Canada. I was indignant about it, and one of his colleagues told me: ''Do not bother; so long as we tell the story that it has been done by Great Britain, it will be OJK., and the Tories will not discuss it." That is their frame of mind. So long as it is done by Great Britain, it becomes a precedent. They bow deeply and everything is OJK. I have noticed that feeling here and it is an anti-Canadian feeling.
I have something more to tell my hon. friend about the Statute of Westminster.


Howard Charles Green: Tell the rest of the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will address the Chair so that everything will be strictly in conformity with the rules. I do not want to offend: my hon. friend because he has been kind to me. I believe that a man of his intelligence should have another conception of this whole thing.
Going back a little, we heard a lot about the imperial conference resolutions of 1926. Those resolutions-what were they? They had no force of law at all. They meant nothing. The representatives of the dominions wTere gathered together in London and the resolutions were just their good wishes. I wish for fine weather tomorrow. It may rain. But it is a fine wish anyway. Those resolutions were not embodied in a statute. They were just wishes. But the colonials were so credulous and so naive that they thought it was very important that they had expressed wishes at an imperial conference.
Afterwards there was the imperial conference of 1930. More wishes. Finally came the Statute of Westminster. Then there was the beating of the drums and the commonwealth was saved. The empire was gone. It was replaced ^ by the commonwealth. When I asked the Prime Minister of Canada what the difference was between the British empire and IVx. Pouliot.]
the British commonwealth he told me that the two words were interchangeable. That will be found in Hansard.
Mr. Massey in a lecture in Montreal last fall said that on account of our war effort Canada had gained a high rank and had risen from a small power to a middle power. When I asked the minister of external affairs whether certain middle powers existed in virtue of the UNO business he said: "No; there are only small countries and the big ones."
The big ones are on the security council. So there is no middle power. There are the big and the small, the giants and the dwarfs. The giants are the imperialists, and the dwarfs are the nice little fellows who are always ready to act according to instructions received from the big ones. This is a true picture of what has been going on everywhere.
I have something else to say about the Statute of Westminster. My hon. friend knows that some people have said serious things; that the great advantage of the Statute of Westminster is that, before that, the governor general was representing the king and the British government. That was a wrong thing; it was beneath the dignity of the British government. Then it was decided, after the Statute of Westminster, not by the Statute of Westminster but after that, to have somebody in the dominion to represent the king and another person to represent the British government. I find that a wrong decision. I do nob see what progress there is in having these two people. It is all right to have the governor general who represents the king and the British government, and I think the British government should have felt honoured to be represented in [DOT] any country by one who is good enough to represent His Majesty the King. But what happened? These high commissioners came into this country and their offices were at times a nest of intrigue and of plotting and a nest of spying as we have seen by the trial of a woman who was in one of those offices since 1932, since Sir William Clark was here, and while sheltered under the roof of the high commissioner she was supplying to another country information as to what was being done in Canada.
It was a bluff to say that the present incumbent of the post of high commissioner in England is greater than Sir Charles Tupper, who has been dead and buried for almost half a century. There has been no change of status. It has been a change of words only. Now they are coming again with another change of words. It is not to offend India. It is not to please Canada. This policy of to please or not to please is not the right

Supply-External Affairs
one. The policy we should have should be in accordance with the needs of the world, and the needs of the world are more spiritual than material. Of course we cannot discuss with those empires their objectives because their objectives are material, the gain of more power. The objective of Canada-and I give credit to the right hon. minister-is a spiritual hope, the hope of improving the conditions of mankind and preventing a future war. Some at least of the big powers are apparently ready to go to war at any time, to get more. They are ready to destroy each other to get more. We want peace throughout the world. That is the great difference.
I wonder if my hon. friend has read the book written by Elliott Roosevelt about his travels with his father and meeting with the big leaders throughout the world. I imagine Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill there on the white sands of Casablanca, discussing the future of the world as they could see it. They were satisfied with themselves, and quite rightly so. They were two big men together, and they tried to make their own peace to be accepted by the whole world. Of the big three, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, there were only two that were agreeing, and my hon. friend knows it. It was Roosevelt and Stalin. Perhaps if Mr. Roosevelt were alive today the world would be in better condition than we are now, although to a certain extent I admire the qualities of Mr. Churchill. It must be admitted, as I said in this house when his son was in front of me in the gallery, his role as a diplomat has been a failure because he never succeeded in gaining the confidence of Stalin. It was not because they sent each other birthday greetings once a year that the world should be satisfied with what happened between them. If my hon. friend, the member for Vancouver South, had been there in the place of Churchill meeting Stalin on so many occasions, I am sure that with his genial disposition he would have gained the heart of Stalin' and that today we would not be in the bad condition in which we are. It is not to bring discredit and disrespect on our own men. They are just as good as anybody but they are not given a chance to do anything. They are not given a chance to give advice to any of the big powers. If they did so they would be told to be quiet. Ready to sit at the table but no advice should be given by the small powers to the big powers. That description of small powers is the invention of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, who wanted to share the world together after the end of the war, or to dispose of it as they thought best. It is history.
Here in this chamber it is impossible at times to do otherwise than follow the fashion. Fashion is established, the fashion of the united nations, and we are bound to accept it without discussion. It has been established by certain big men. We have the united nations. The united nations will rule the world. I am opposed to that ruling; I am opposed to that world government because I am not satisfied with what the united nations have done so far. They have done nothing useful for the peace of mankind.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would think that makes it correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would tell the hon. gentleman that I am not joking now. If I were he would find it painful, but I am talking very seriously. I have some concern, although I am not jittery. I have some concern because, according to the old saying in the bible, Desolatione desolata est terra quia nullus est qui recogitet in suo corde, from desolation the land is desolate because there is no one who thinks in his heart. Everybody is ready to accept canned ideas; everybody seems to be satisfied to be invited to these great gatherings, which may satisfy personal vanity and similar human feelings. Those who are there are given the impression that they are accomplishing something, but they are accomplishing nothing. They are there sitting at the conference tables just the same as we are sitting here in the House of Commons. We have the impression of accomplishing something; we are working hard but we accomplish nothing at all, and it is the same result that comes from these conferences. I am sorry. When I asked if we were represented at Teheran and Cairo the Prime Minister said no. I asked, further, if we were bound by the decisions reached at these conferences. He said no, but added that what has been decided by the great powers at these conferences must have some weight with the other united nations. If I have not given the exact words, it is the true meaning of what he said. In those cases we were not represented but even when we are represented nothing else is changed because of that inferiority complex of the small countries, not only Canada, but all small countries, with regard to the big powers.
I have the deepest admiration for South Africa and for Australia and for the stand that they have been taking at world conferences. They have been defending the rights of the small powers. Why? Because the rights of the small powers were right, and the ambitions of the big powers were just greed. As a lawyer, and as a man who has respect for the law and moreover, a respect for jus-


[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
tice, which is more than respect for the law, because law is not always in conformity with justice, I believe that, leaving aside for the moment the consideration of spiritual values, we shall have peace in the world only when the small nations are given the same rights as the big ones. The question of right, the question of justice, the question of equality, the question of autonomy, are foremost, in importance, and there can be no equality within the British empire when all decisions are made Iby the representatives of the United Kingdom, even if we are young enough and childish enough to be represented by these British ambassadors at large who have not our feelings, who have not our views in the settlement of past disputes and the establishment of peace for the happiness of mankind.
I will not say any more now, but I could say much more. I come back to my question and ask the minister to be kind enough to tell us what we have gained in the last two years from our association with the united nations and what are the serious hopes of a better future and the establishment of peace, if any.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member has displayed such a wide knowledge of facts and perhaps some fiction, that I am sure no answer I could give would change his interpretation of the facts or fiction in any degree.
Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege. I have a high regard for the minister but he misjudges me. I did not display any complete information about the matter, and that is precisely why I have been asking questions.


Norman Jaques: Two great nations have celebrated their national birthdays this week. The peace of the world depends more than anything else on preserving good feeling between the British and the United States people; but it is clear that there are forces which are working to destroy these friendly relations and to stir up hatred between the British and the United States people. I might mention two of these forces. One is political zionism and the other is international finance which we can sum up by the name "Wall Street". May I quote the Cardinal Archbishop McGuigan at the Marian congress when he said that liberty is dependent on truth; that truth will make you free. Truth is the mother of liberty. Truth is its light, its actions and its glory. How much truth is hidden when external affairs are discussed? I do not mean in this chamber but wherever they are discussed. Do we hear the truth,

or do we hear something which is passed off as the truth? I should like to quote the magazine Truth, the magazine of the once great Liberal party of Great Britain. On May 23,	1947, there appeared in that
magazine an article with regard to a meeting in Albert Hall, London, held for the purpose of discussing international affairs, and this report is made with respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
His Grace referred to Europe as having once been known as Christendom, but he expressed no hope that Christendom would he revived. Instead, he went out of his way to stress that the campaign for a limited Europe was being waged by people of all creeds and of none. He spoke, too, of the heritage which Europe had derived from Greece, Rome and Palestine, but so carefully were his sentences chosen that the Palestinian contribution was worded without one reference to Christ. No American President during the past quarter of a century has dared to refer to the United States as a Christian nation, the reason being that a small but formidable minority of American citizens resent the title. Things have come to a pretty pass, however, when the Archbishop of Canterbury feels obliged to pick his way with similar caution when aproaching the problem of Europe's future.
The last speaker referred to powers and small powers, and he said there were no middle powers. I wonder where he would put that small but formidable minority who resent the title of Christian nation. Would he say that was a minor or a major power? It seems to me they are able to control all the powers.
It is strange that so far no mention has been made of the visit of the external affairs committee to Lake Success. We were invited there as the official guests of the united nations organization for the express purpose of hearing the discussions on Palestine. I was one of those who went and I was greatly interested in listening to the debates of the delegates. I mention this because I believe that the Palestine question is at the present time perhaps the greatest threat to world peace.
I should like to refer to a statement I made in this house on December 17, 1945, when I spoke on the Arab-Zionist question. I said:
I have no brief for either side, my sole concern is to establish the truth, for just as truth and freedom are indivisible so mutual faith_ in the given '.cord is the basis of friendship, individual and international. Once that faith is destroyed or even impaired, trust and friendship turn to suspicion and hatred. But in spite of historic fact, the Zionists base their case on racial, cultural and commercial superiority. These claims on behalf of a favoured nation and a chosen people are upheld especially by leftists and internationalists, by the very people who denounce racism and nationalism. They also are the people who claim especially to be

Supply-External Affairs
the world's peacemakers, but who, in the face of continued and fatal rioting in Palestine, are going out of their way to embarrass Great Britain in her efforts to maintain peace by encouraging tolerance by both Arab and Jew.
At that time I quoted a letter I received in answer to one of mine from Mr. Herbert 'Mowat, who was executive director of the Canadian Palestine committee. I will not quote the whole of his letter, but I will quote enough to show that there are people who are not worrying about the future peace of the world so much as they are about furthering their own interests or rather the interest of those whom they serve, because in this letter he makes it clear where he believes Canada stands in regard to the Palestine question. He says:
If the Arabs fight a united nations decision on Palestine it is apparent that they have forfeited their place of good standing in this world organization. Our committee represents the united nations point of view and technique in respect to Palestine. If the Arabs fight what the world agrees should be done about Palestine they fly in the face of world law and order and, so far as the united nations organization is concerned. they are outlaws and as such are subject to military measures to be taken by the security council of the united nations, a body which Canada is bound to support in whatever action it takes according to the unanimous adoption of the united nations charter which took place in our Canadian House of Commons and Canadian Senate not long ago. Whatever responsibility rests on Canada through membership in the united nations organization accruing from the situation in Palestine our committee believes should be accepted.
According to that, we are committed to take part in a war before this Palestine question is settled. But- since I made that speech and since Mr. Mowat wrote that letter the very thing has happened about which I warned the members at that time. And I confirmed it when I was in New York attending the united nations organization discussions on Palestine. I discussed this question with leading Arabs and other delegates who are vitally interested in the matter. What is happening? As a result of the pressure put upon the united nations by this small minority of political Zionists who seem to have political control, not only in the United States, but in Great Britain and in Canada, the Arab people are being driven to become more sympathetic to the soviet overtures, and behind the scenes the soviet agents are working all through the Moslem world from the East Indies clear across to Morocco on the Atlantic ocean.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: They have not had much success.


Norman Jaques: I do not know.


Pierre Gauthier: I know.
83166-327J
Mr. JAQUES': I would say that the position in India is due largely, or at any rate in part, to propaganda which has its origin in Moscow.


Pierre Gauthier: They have been put out of all the parties in India.


Norman Jaques: They may have been put out of the parties; but, as hon. members know very well, the communist party man is no danger anyway. It is the fellow traveller who is the danger, and he is inside every party in all countries. As I was saying, that is the position with regard to Palestine at the present time, and that is what we face. When I was in New York I made inquiries; and, as far as I could understand, whatever is decided by this Palestine commission of the united nations organization, neither Great Britain nor the Arabs nor even the Zionists are bound to accept it. I believe Great Britain made that clear. The Arabs say they will accept it, of course, if they consider it favourable; if not, they fight. That is what I learned in New York when I was at the UNO conference.
Not only is that mainly the danger in Palestine and the near east; the same danger threatens the relations between the British people and the people of the United States, owing to the Zionist anti-British propaganda which is most violent and virulent in the United States. I have been a witness to that on several occasions. There is also, of course, a similar propaganda being used in Great Britain to turn the friendly feeling of the British people against the people of the United States. The whole purpose is to separate the English-speaking peoples in order that they can be that much more easily dealt with. As I said when I started, I believe that the peace of the world, politically at least- and I am leaving out any moral and religious consideration-depends, more than on anything else upon the continued and increased friendship between all the English-speaking peoples; that is, between the peoples of the British commonwealth of nations and those of the United States. Those friendly relations are being threatened by a deliberate propaganda which is aimed at the separation of the two great English-speaking peoples.
I might quote from a petition which was sent last fall from the public affairs forum of Los Angeles to President Truman. When I was in Los Angeles last winter I met the chairman of this public affairs forum and he gave me a copy of this resolution. I will not read it all, but just two or three paragraphs:
Whereas the President of the United States, the state department and members of congress are daily subjected to a barrage of telegrams, resolutions and letters from Jewish-Zionist organizations urging the government of the United
Supply-External Affairs

States to interfere in the conflict between Zionists on one hand the Arabs and Great Britain on the other, for the purpose of forcing the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, contrary to the wishes of the native inhabitants, and	_
Whereas such agitation spreads disunity among the American people and weakens the government of the United States in its diplomatic relations with other countries, thus making more difficult the establishment of permanent, honourable peace between our country and other nations, and
Whereas certain well-financed professional Zionist agitators, radio commentators and newspapers who cater to so-called minority groups (whose activities suggest that they have a dual allegiance inconsistent with loyalty to the United States) are now engaged in Russia-first, pro-communist, pro-zionist, and anti-British propaganda thus giving aid and comfort to subversive foreign ideologies and organizations.
Let me say that I have witnessed active displays of that propaganda, and its importance cannot be exaggerated. I believe it is the greatest threat at the present time to any real permanent peace. I say again that anything which threatens or injures British-United States relations, threatens world peace. Everywhere in the United States among people who take an interest in international affairs, I was told that responsible opinion is that the deterioration of Europe's condition since the war is largely due to the so-called Morgenthau plan.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, may I say that it seems to me that the greatest threat to world peace is this idea of one world and one-world government. How can there be one world and a one-world government shared by two ideologies which are absolutely opposed to each other? They are as far apart as the north and south poles. I have said in this house and elsewhere many times over during the past several years-since the war ended anyway-that if there is one certain way of bringing about another war, it is the drive for one world and a one-world government, oecause there are, in fact, two worlds at the present time. There is the world and the way of life that we know; then there is the soviet, the totalitarian, the communist or the Marxian socialist way, I do not care what you call it. Those are the two worlds. If there is to be one world, then I say that one of those worlds will have to be eliminated; and in that process it is possible that both worlds will be destroyed.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: The statement made this afternoon by the minister was on such a high plane that much of the discussion which follows on his estimates is bound to appear trivial. The minister is to be congratulated on having expressed in

such appropriate words Canada's aim in the world today. The committee will agree with him in all that, he has said.
I had intended to review what has happened since I spoke on this subject last year. However, in view of the advanced stage of our proceedings I shall touch upon only two points at the present time. On one of those points I would associate myself with what has been said by other hon. members by way of regret that a subject of this importance should come before the committee at such a late hour in the session. The situation in the world at large is such as to have warranted more time being devoted to a discussion of this subject. Yet I believe I would not be fair if I were not to admit, or if I failed to recognize the fact that much has been done in the last three years to improve the situation.
The committee on external affairs, first under the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who was the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, and now under the present minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is to be commended for the work it is doing. Both the Prime Minister and the present minister of the department are to be commended in this regard because, through the evidence given by officials in the department, hon. members have been able to gain a much better knowledge of the inner workings of the department, and a better knowledge of the problems of those officials who must advise the government on these questions.
I think much can be said, too, of the good work done by the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr.Bradette), since he has taken charge of it. The next step would seem to be for the government to accept the suggestion which has come from all sides of the house, namely, in the next year and years to follow, to bring down the estimates for the Department of External Affairs earlier in the session.
My chief object in rising at this time is to emphasize anew the importance of giving adequate remuneration to those in our diplomatic service. At times we are bound to be criticized for expenditures made. But here is one place where I believe we are not as generous as we should be. It would be to the advantage of the house and the country if we understood better the necessity for appropriating larger sums for our external service.
Perhaps on this occasion I might be permitted to repeat what I said on March 21, 1946, when a similar debate was in progress before the house. On that occasion I said:

Supply-External Affairs
I saw the evolution of our diplomatic service during the years I was in contact with its members when on many occasions I accompanied the late (Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe to imperial or international conferences. I think we have as good a staff of men as or in some cases even better than, the big powers. We should make life in the service more comfortable and free from worry and criticism. We should pay them more generously from the rank of third secre-trary up to that of ambassador. I hold no brief to speak for the personnel of the Department of External Affairs, but I think it is only fair to say the good I think of them especially when they have been doing such a good job.
And later in the same speech I said:
We have-in external affairs a body of men who are highly trained, who are hard working, but who are strangely unpaid. This is not said in criticism of the minister or his deputy minister, but I do want to offer a word of advice to the press and to the house that better service will be rendered to the country if the government is encouraged to lift the standard of pay of our diplomats. During the early stages of their careers when these men have to spend many years in acquiring knowledge they are greatly underpaid when compared with the returns that could be obtained in business. A young man in business may have some value, but certainly he has not the cultural achievements possessed by our officials in external affairs.
I know the minister, personally, is sympathetic to the staff which serves him; but I believe I can show, if I may take a moment or so, that the salaries paid, particularly in the lower positions, are quite low. A third secretary, according to the estimates, appears to begin at $2,500 and goes up to $2,840. In this year's estimates we have some as low as $2,520 and others as high as $2,820. In order to reach that point, these men must have had college training. They must be college graduates, and they have had to attend universities and spend a long time to acquire the proper training which the duties in these important positions demand. This is a most important department of government.
I suggest that consideration should be given to a review of the present situation. The examinations which I know these men had to pass a few years ago-and I believe they are equally as difficult today-are quite exacting. These young men must know more than the average man would need to know who would receive three times the salary. When they enter the service they are young, and may not mature immediately. Even so, I believe-they are deserving of higher salaries.
Then, the allowances are shown in a lump sum. Although I asked for details, my request was received too late to be of service in this debate. I would point out, however, that, although they may appear satisfactory, certainly in certain cases they are not too high. I have been in many of our embassies abroad,
and I know that young men with families in those positions find it difficult to follow those who are in the foreign services of other countries. It may be that many of the older countries attract wealthier men to their foreign service, while in Canada we take young men who have passed the required examinations and have shown that they have the necessary qualifications but may not have private means. Therefore they find themselves at a disadvantage when they must deal with diplomats of other countries who are better paid or who have private means.
I believe that is a point which should be given careful consideration. If we expect to attraot the high calibre of men it has been our good fortune to attract up to this time, we cannot expect that they will always have private means, and we should consider improving their position either by giving them better allowances or higher salaries, and especially those who are stationed in Ottawa.
I have mentioned third secretaries because their salaries are the lowest; but I do not think a man would reach the position of first secretary much before the age of forty, or somewhere around that. We find that first secretaries are receiving salaries as low as $4,500, and ranging up to $4,900; and these men have been in the service for at least fifteen years.
I believe we would be ill-advised to criticize expenditures in our diplomatic service. We are wise to make sure that there is no waste of money; on the other hand, we should be generous in our appropriations for our representatives abroad. In those countries we have very few people from Canada and Canadians at large are judged from those few. We should be giving them fair salaries and allowances so that they would be able to maintain their rank and give the impression that Canada is really a rich country, a country of the future, and that it pays well those in its service who are deserving.


Gordon Graydon: How does the Brazilian post stand at the present time? I understand that some change is in contemplation, and I was wondering whether it is likely to take place soon. I understand the Hon. Jean Desy is now in Switzerland, and I had in mind whether it was the intention that he should go back to Rio de Janeiro or whether he was being selected for some other post.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Jean Desy is at present on leave from his post in Brazil, a leave to which the regulations entitle him. However, he consented to represent Canada at the refugee conference in Geneva. He was taking his leave in Europe and complied
Supply-External Affairs

readily with our suggestion that he represent us at that conference. No change has yet been made with respect to his post in Brazil.
The hon. member has said that a change is contemplated. There is in contemplation the establishment of a mission in Italy as soon as the peace treaty with Italy is ratified; or perhaps it might be established even earlier. That is a matter which is under consideration. Mr. Desy is one of those under consideration for the Italian post. If he is appointed to that post, some other representative will have to be chosen and) recommended to His Majesty for Brazil.


Gordon Graydon: Wherever Mr. Desy goes,
I am sure that most of us feel that he will do a most excellent job on behalf of Canada. Has the minister any further information to give other than that which was tendered a few weeks ago with respect to the exchange of senior diplomatic representation between Canada and Russia?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, there have been no developments there. When the former ambassador to Russia took his leave of Mr. Molotov he was informed that the question of appointing a senior representative of the soviet republics in Canada was under consideration, but there have been no developments since that time.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Kearney was appointed high commissioner to India some time ago, and a point that rises in my mind is whether Mr. Kearney has been delegated to Pakistan, Hindustan and so on.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Kearney was delegated to India. So far, we have not been officially notified that there has been any change in the status of the nation to which he was delegated.


Gordon Graydon: I intended that my next question w'ould be as to what would happen after the official designation comes through, 'but I fancy there is little use in my asking it. Experience tells me that the minister will say that they will cross that bridge when they come to it; only he will use language much more perfect and delicate and say that that is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member's words are sufficiently polished and delicate to express my views.


Gordon Graydon: I am not sure whether my next question would come under the minister's department or not. It has to do with reparations in connection with the S. S.

Athenia upon which a number of Canadians were passengers and which was sunk in the early days of the war. I understand that some progress has been made with respect to reparations to those who lost property as well as in cases where lives were lost. I should like to know if the minister can say when Canadians may expect payment of their reparation claims.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid I would not venture to forecast any date. A conference of those countries entitled to reparations from the western zones of occupation of Germany under the terms of the Potsdam agreement was held in Paris during November and December, 1945. This conference agreed to an allocation of all German assets available for reparations on a percentage basis between the countries participating in the conference and also agreed to the setting up of an interallied reparation agency charged with the distribution of these assets between the claimant countries.
It was also decided at the conference to establish two categories of external assets; namely, category A and category B; the latter category to include industrial and other capital equipment, merchant shipping, and inland water transport. Category A includes all other forms of German assets available for reparations, such as (a) German assets within each country's jurisdiction, (b) German assets in neutral countries, (c) future deliveries from current German production, and (d) reciprocal deliveries from the eastern zones of occupation of Germany.
I think the hon. member will feel as I do that the prospect of delivery from current German production or of reciprocal deliveries from the eastern zones of occupation in Germany have not yet proved to be very good, and there are not very sanguine hopes at the present moment that they will improve.
The conference did not determine what total amount of reparations should be paid by Germany or the period over which payments should be made. I would imagine that the restoration of conditions in Europe would [DOT] be looked upon as having prior claim on current production over reparations. The Canadian ambassador in Paris signed the reparations agreement on behalf of Canada on January 30, 1946. The agreement has been published in treaty series, 1945, No. 23, and was tabled in the house on March 15, 1946.
The first session of the assembly of the inter-allied reparation agency, set up under

Supply-External Affairs
the reparation agreement, took place at Brussels from February 28 to March 7, 1946. Since then, the assembly has met eight times. The first Canadian delegate to the interallied reparation agency was the Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, at that time our ambassador to Belgium. When the Hon. Mr. Turgeon left Brussels in September, 1946, to become Canadian high commissioner to Eire, Colonel G. W. McPherson took over his position at the agency.
During the initial meeting of the assembly, several standing committees were organized, on which Canada has representation on the following: the committee of German external assets; the.merchant shipping committee; and the committee on industrial property.
During the past year and up to the present time, no German reparations of importance have been allocated to Canada by the interallied reparation agency, except the three merchant vessels: Huascaran, Tiefland-now called Empire Gatehouse-and Weserwehr- now called Empire Gangway. Of these, the first two are already under Montreal registry and the other will also be registered there upon its arrival from England in the near future.
I have no information I can give the hon. member about the claims of persons who suffered through the disaster to the Athenia.


Gordon Graydon: I am wondering if the minister will not find, on further investigation, that the claims of the Athenia victims were underwritten by the United Kingdom. It seems to me that that information came to me during the past year and that is one of the reasons I asked my question. I will not ask the minister to elaborate on his answer now, but perhaps some time before the session closes he will give what information he has on that point. I think he will find that the Athenia victims are in a different position with respect to their claims from any other reparations claimants.
The next matter to which I should like to refer is the Canadian information service. I have looked in vain for details covering this branch of external affairs. If they are in some other place I should like the minister to indicate just what the position is. Will he state whether there is to be a new chairman appointed and what the future policy of the department will be with respect to this branch which has been taken over from another department?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: On February 5 the duties of the Canadian information service
relative to the distribution abroad of information concerning Canada were transferred to the Department of External Affairs by order in council issued under the Transfer of Duties Act. The estimates had been prepared and the headings were the same as the headings in external affairs. The amounts were added together and they constitute the estimates now before the committee. On each item I shall be able to give the amount which concerns what was formerly external affairs and the amount which concerns what was formerly the Canadian information service. When the service was absorbed into external affairs, its permanent employees became part of the permanent employees of the department and the temporaries became part of the temporary employees of the department. Travelling expenses, printing and so forth were the same, so that no distinction was made in printing the estimates, which were formerly presented separately. For instance, permanent salaries, all concern the former external affairs service; temporary assistance, the estimate is $680,943, and of that amount $534,499 was for former external affairs service, and $146,444 for the temporary employees.


Gordon Graydon: What is the number of that item?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is in the details on page 106 of the estimates with respect to the item for departmental administration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are the duties which were being discharged after the absorption exactly the same as the duties before?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The domestic work was practically eliminated just as quickly as that could be arranged. The department is now carrying on information service only for its foreign affairs. With respect to the replacement of the head of information service, he will be replaced by an official of the Department of External Affairs.


Gordon Graydon: A new appointee?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, one who was already in the service of external affairs. That is the present intention. Mr. Andrews, as the hon. member knows, is going to become assistant to the president of the university of British Columbia, but at our request he has continued and is cooperating with us in preparing the transition to some other person in the department as head of the service.


Gordon Graydon: I am not yet quite sure as to the exact position of information service now in this department. Has it been
Supply-External Affairs

completely absorbed and has it lost its identity so far as a branch of the external affairs department is concerned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is the information division of the Department of External Affairs. There are six or seven divisions under the under-secretary of state for external affairs, each one having a head responsible to the under-secretary.


Gordon Graydon: If that is the case, can
we have a break-down of the expenditures which are contemplated in these estimates for that one division? Perhaps that will answer the question.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The item for departmental administration is $1,534,144; services performed by those employed in Canada, $477,144; estimate for the services to be performed outside Canada, $169,406.


Gordon Graydon: What does the minister mean by those employed in Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	A certain number
work here. Then we have a certain number of representatives in Washington, New York, London, one in Mexico, Canberra and Paris. Those are the places where there were representatives of that branch, but they have now been integrated into external affairs, and wherever they are they are a part of the staff of the mission established there.


Gordon Graydon: Have all domestic
characteristics of this branch been abandoned entirely, and is it now dealing entirely with external affairs?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Yes, that is so.
We have eliminated the service performed or asserted to have been performed for the Canadian public and have confined it exclusively to servicing our offices abroad.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My understanding was that at one time the service provided information not merely for our own officials abroad but for use in foreign countries. Was that true and is it still true, or is it now purely a service for our own officials abroad?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	That is still true.
They are still a part of our missions abroad supplying information with respect to Canadian affairs to inquirers and to the press. There is an inquiry service; also the preparation and distribution of reference materials abroad; the production and distribution of publications; the provision and distribution of photographs, posters and other graphic materials abroad; the procurement and distribution of books for reference libraries

abroad; arranging facilities for journalists visiting Canada and for Canadian speakers abroad; the handling of arrangements for cultural projects; the preparation and distribution of circular dispatches,; the coordination of information activities abroad; the arranging of departmental press conferences; the preparation and distribution of departmental , press releases; the handling of Canadian press releases at international conferences; the operation of area desks, that is, desks in charge of responsible persons for various areas in the world. They carry on the duties of information officers.


Gordon Graydon: Have we an information service for the Department of External Affairs and another overlapping information service for the Department of Trade and Commerce? I am not criticizing the minister especially, but I look with some considerable suspicion on this taking over of Canadian information service. I think you have adopted a kind of delicate child, if the minister does not mind my saying so, and you may have some trouble in bringing it up. Here you have hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money being spent on this information service. Has the minister read over the various jobs that this information service did? I must confess I think the public is pretty well fed up on all this canned information. You would be surprised how little the public bothers with canned stuff in the way of news today. A lot of people said that there was a paper war in certain respects. You are moving into a paper peace now. We should not do that. I should like the minister to give assurance to the committee that in between sessions he himself will go into this question of the Canadian information service and go into it with a fine tooth comb because it deserves a real combing out. I would be surprised if we are not to duplicate a lot of news services that are already available. This vote is up half a million dollars now. If the figures I heard are correct it is an outlandish and scandalous business. If it were to go on in this way I am pretty sure that we shall not get good value for our money. Government policy will have to be reviewed carefully. We have the Department of Trade and Commerce making a move all over the world trying to get our goods sold. If we are to get back the money that we spend that is all right, but I am not at all sure that this is not just a big unprofitable balloon that the government has up in the air. It had better deflate it before the public get wise to what is going on, because, once they do, this distribution of paper all over the world will arouse them. We are paying very heavily

Supply-External Affairs
for it. I do not want to be unreasonable about the matter. Most hon. members will take a similar view to mine. In all fairness to his department and to his government, the minister ought to go into the matter very carefully before he commits himself to any big expense in the formulation of other estimates.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should like to reply at once to the hon. member for Peel. When I first came here, for the first two or three sessions I listened to vehement speeches from the hon. gentleman who preceded my hon. friend as acting leader of the opposition. The tone of his speeches was that the government was not doing its duty to the public of Canada because it did not have a press relations service in the United States. For the first two or three sessions that was repeatedly drummed into us, that we were doing a pretty good job in our war effort, but .that we were not publicizing it and that we did not have good press relations in the United States. Later, there was set up an organization under an experienced gentleman who had previously been dealing with the publishers in the United States in his capacity as representative of the manufacturers of paper. Within a relatively short time there was a change in the attitude of public opinion in the United States, or at least there were very much more favourable things being said and printed about Canadians and the Canadian war effort than had been said before. Hon. gentlemen opposite quickly became suspicious of the activities of that war information service, and I think it was at the last session or the one before that they were quite vehement in their denunciation of the fact that we were using taxpayers' money for government propaganda.


Gordon Graydon: In the domestic field; you should not have done it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In order to make sure that was not done, it was suggested that this department be brought under the control and supervision of the Department of External Affairs, and that it had no right to do anything that those responsible for the conduct of our external affairs did not feel it was necessary to do to disseminate proper information about Canadian affairs. That integration was made, and instructions were given that there was to be no domestic propaganda, and there has not been any domestic propaganda.
When the hon. member for Peel suggests that I take what time I may have between sessions to make a personal investigation of the situation I tell him that I will not do that. I have in the Department of External Affairs officials
in whom I have sufficient confidence to take their word in their report to me that the instructions which have been given are being carried out. Whenever the House of Commons decides that that is not sufficient, that it has to have a minister of the crown who will do it personally, I will not be that minister of the crown.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the Prime Minister say that he expected the house to rise on the twelfth? If so, did he take into consideration the political propaganda of the opposition?


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Chairman, I rose a couple of hours ago to ask a simple question. Evidently your eye was cast somewhere else, and that was all right; I have no objection to that. But since that time, after listening to quite a few speeches I rather felt a speech was growing on me, and my thoughts since that time have now become rather elaborated. However I am not going to punish the committee any more tonight with a further speech. I have confidence in the leader of this group, together with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) who represented us on the external affairs committee.
I am interested in international affairs, and if it were not so late in the session I would have spoken at some length. May I make just one observation before asking my question? It is with respect to one or two things that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said. I always enjoy his speeches.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Ernest George Hansell: Because I always enjoy a little comedy. Sometimes he speaks words of real wisdom. However, tonight I think a good deal of what he said was a little bit of puffing and blowing. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) answered him very appropriately. In his proposal the hon. member attempted to evaluate some of the world's diplomats. If I recall rightly he said that Mr. Churchill when he was with Mr. Stalin and Mr. Roosevelt had failed miserably as a diplomat. That depends very largely on what information we may have on which to base our opinions. We are all subject to propaganda; we are all subject to what comes to us in the press and over the radio.. Propaganda is very powerful. The propaganda machine can make a man overnight, and it can break him overnight. If we were to appraise the value of these men on the basis of that which is true, if we were
Supply-External Affairs

able to gain access to the truth, I am certain we would find that Mr. Churchill ranked with the highest of diplomats.
The hon. member referred to these three great men in conference at Teheran. Personally I believe that Mr. Churchill went to that conference with plans for the reconciliation and reconstruction of Europe, plans which evidently met their Waterloo. Why they did so we are not able to say, because we are not in possession of all the facts.
I wish to quote, from the New York Sun of May 8, 1945, part of an article written by a well known columnist, Mr. George SokoLsky, who had the following to say with reference to that conference:
One of these men (the Big Three) is a British aristocrat, conservative, imperialistic, proud, the most heroic political figure of the war. But he heads an empire that has long been used to the limit. Its principal resource now is the treasury and industry of the United States. His mind is robust, but his purse is bare. At a bargain he sits with empty hands and high hopes.
If that observation is right, then I think some responsibility rested upon the shoulders of Mr. Roosevelt at that time, and my personal view is that Mr. Roosevelt was a much overrated world figure.


Pierre Gauthier: I do not think so.


Ernest George Hansell: W'hen history is rewritten a century or two from now, perhaps that will be found to have been the truth.


Pierre Gauthier: Both were good men.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not saying they were not both good men, but if this observation by this columnist is true it proves one thing. It proves that those world powers which hold the purse strings of the world! control the destinies of the nations. Let that be put down as, in my opinion, one fundamental principle.
Alnd now, Mr. Chairman, I will ask my question. It is not along the line I have been talking. It is a simple question. Perhaps I could have telephoned the minister, but it might as well be on the record. I had an inquiry from a university graduate who is interested in going into the diplomatic service. Would the minister tell us what the procedure would be for that young man? He has a Master of Science degree in education and is going on from there for some other degree. What procedure will be necessary? Will any preliminary training be required by the department? Perhaps the minister would amplify that, for me.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I understand that a competition is to be announced at an early day by the civil service commission for entry into the service of external affairs, and if the gentleman in question would write to the commission I am sure they would inform him as soon as the competition was announced and send him forms to apply as one of the competing candidates. If, on the other hand, he wishes further information and will write to the department, giving information about himself, the personnel officer of the department will reply and tell him what further qualifications, if any, are required, and will facilitate to the greatest degree possible his participation in the civil service competition.


Gordon Graydon: I understand that most of the positions which are open in the department are being filled by university graduates. If that is the case I should like to plead the cause of those who have graduated from agricultural colleges across Canada. From a question I asked last year in the external affairs committee, I do not think a single man from an agricultural college was admitted to the department. In our relations with other countries the people whom we sent abroad are the only show-windows by which those nations can judge the Canadian people, and it would seem a shame if graduates of agricultural colleges could not have their quota so that they might be sent to other countries, in view of the fact that Canada occupies so important a position in agricultural matters.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am informed that graduates of agricultural colleges are not in any way debarred, but they tend to go to the Department of Agriculture or to trade and commerce. There is being established a system of interchange between trade and commerce and external affairs, and there is a desire in both departments to make them complementary to each other and to make the personnel in each of the two available for promotions that become open in either. I think that is a move which not only will be helpful to the morale of the personnel in the two departments but will give the two departments a broader field from which to select the best persons for any post which is to be filled.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Now that the air is cooler, I want to come bad to the question of the information service. The minister seemed to become so interested in one aspect of the question asked by the hon. member for Peel that he forgot to answer the question. We are in earnest about it. We know that when a going concern of this kind

Supply-External Affairs
gets into action it is hard to prevent it from going on and even increasing and we want to know whether there is danger of overlapping or of parallel action. From what the minister read to us of the activities now being conducted within the 'Department of External Affairs, that long list which was read seemed to include a number of items which the layman would think were within the scope, let us say, of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister say whether in some important country where we have quite an organization for the Department of Trade and Commerce and an organization also for the Department of External Affairs there are actually two publicity organizations, or whether, in such a case, it is all done by one. We do not suggest that there is carelessness or impropriety, but we do suggest that there is real danger of overlapping, and it is our duty to find out about it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My information is that it is all done by one. There is close cooperation between the two departments to make mutually available all facilities that either provides. It was found that there had been, in the growth that was a natural consequence of the way in which the Canadian information service had been established, things that could be eliminated, and they are being eliminated. It is, as I believe the hon. member will concede, the sincere desire of external affairs to avoid anything that could become the object of partisan controversy. The Secretary of State and the under secretary have given instructions that we avoid responsibility for anything that could become the object of partisan controversy. That is being attended to just as closely as possible. I can give the hon. member the assurance that these items are lower than they were last year. Last year the estimates were more than was expended. There will not be anything done which we feel can be avoided. We are doing much less in that field than other countries. The figures in that respect were put on the record in the committee on external affairs. We shall probably do some things which were not done by the Canadian information service, but we expect to do only that which we feel will be providing full value for what is expended.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the list of ministers and ambassadors which I received I do not find the name of General Odium. Is he still in the public service?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: General Odium is still on leave, and there is no public announcement I can make at the present time. I
should be glad to tell the hon. members just what the situation is, and I hope that it will not be many days before I am in a position to make a public announcement. The hon. member realizes that we have to get agreements of foreign countries when we make an appointment and to get the approval of His Majesty to appointments in a foreign service; and no announcements are ever made until those agreements and approvals have been secured. I hope that I shall be able to announce at an early day the appointment of General Odium to a foreign post.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
-}S. Representation abroad-including salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $3,178,256.	*
Gordon Graydon: Can the minister give some indication as to what the general policy is with respect to the balancing of nonprofessional diplomats and professional diplomats, if I may classify them in those categories, in so far as appointment to senior diplomatic posts across the world is concerned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Whenever a senior post was to be filled, if there was available in the department an officer who was considered to be qualified to fill it, he was appointed to the post. Whenever there was not in the department someone who appeared to be ready to take on the post, we looked outside for a representative.


Gordon Graydon: Some reference was made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario to the former ambassador to China, General Odium. At the bottom of page 190 and the major part of page 191 of the minutes and proceedings of evidence of the standing committee on external affairs, certain questions were asked with respect to the new arrangements made for the new ambassador to China who has had extensive baggage go over with him, the baggage including four houses, a truck, a substantial amount of foodstuffs and some coal. One of the witnesses said that the baggage had taken about $30,000 to transport it from here to China. That would indicate a sort of adventure into what, I should think, might be called trailer diplomacy. In any event, whatever it may be called, I asked some questions of the witness who was on the stand at that time, and I think it was Mr. Matthews. He indicated he could get me the actual details of the shipment. I know the minister will not have those with him now; but before the session is ended, in order that
Supply-External Affairs

we may have the information complete, will he provide that information? I think I myself am partly remiss in not having followed up the question in the committee on external affairs at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think I have most of the information here. Mr. Mattheiws noted the question and prepared a note for me in order that I might deal with it. First of all, with respect to coal: In July, 1946, General Odium advised the department that the price of poor coal in Nanking was $150, United States, per ton and suggested that we consider shipping coal for heating the residences and offices in China. As the situation regarding fuel in Nanking had not improved, it was decided to ship coal in the vessel which was taking the prefabricated houses to Nanking. Two hundred and four tons were purchased at a price of $10.90 a ton and were shipped to Nanking at a freight cost of $28 per ton. In this manner, the embassy was provided with a good quality of coal for $37.90 a ton, whilst poor quality coal had been purchased the year before at $150 a ton.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister doing the same thing in France where it is $80 a ton?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have not yet done the same in France. I was not informed that coal cost the equivalent of $80 a ton.
When a Canadian legation was first opened in Chungking, no premises were available for lease since the movement of the Chinese government and of all foreign missions to Chungking, had more than doubled its ordinary population. It was, therefore, necessary to construct a building which served as a residence for the minister, for all Canadian members of his staff and also as offices premises. The total cost of this building was approximately $135,000. The building was modest in size and extremely simple in its design and furnishings. The large cost resulted entirely from the fact that the official rate of exchange for Chinese national currency at the time of construction multiplied costs by at least five times what they would have been for a similiar building in Canada. When the capital was moved to Nanking the problem of suitable premises became acute.
In June of 1946, General Odium, who was then ambassador, advised us that, after a long search, a small house which would be just adequate for the first secretary was available at a rental of $600, United States, per month, on a two-year lease, all to be paid in advance. He advised us this was the lowest rent for which any property was available. As it was necessary to provide accommodation for the

ambassador, the counsellor, the first secretary, the Canadian members of the stenographic and clerical staff, the military attache and for offices, the department decided to explore the possibility of sending to China prefabricated houses. In the meantime accommodation had to be leased. It was decided that eventually we would have to adopt the practice of other missions in China and to provide all residence and office accommodation in a single com-; pound. So that any buildings erected now would be of continuing use, land for this compound has been purchased.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is at Nanking?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, at Nanking. I have the costs here.


Gordon Graydon: I was really rising to ask the details of the shipment across. Perhaps the minister might add that in that Chungking case, with the cost $135,000, I think the house when sold brought only $12,000.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know.


Gordon Graydon: That is on the record.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The freight charges on these prefabricated houses was $20,280.65.


Gordon Graydon: Can the minister give the details I asked for in my question regardL ing the freight shipment over, in addition to the houses? The minister gave the information with respect to coal, but in addition to that there was a truck, if my information is correct, and a quantity of foodstuffs. Has the minister those details?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. I have a note with respect to the coal on which the freight was $28 a ton,, and the charge on the prefabricated houses amounted to $20,280.65. But it was felt, in view of our experience with the cost of building with materials supplied at Chungking, that anything we could send over from Canada would cost much less than if we attempted to secure it in China.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have three questions to ask. First, are there any developments in connection with filling the senior diplomatic post at Moscow, and also are there any developments in connection with the Soviet Union filling their senior post here?


Gordon Graydon: I asked that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Second, I have a question relating to the purchase of the new residence in Washington. Has that been completed? Third, could the minister indicate the number of countries in which we' maintain both diplomatic missions and trade-commissioners' offices?

Supply-Transport
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My hon. friend will find the reply to the first question in Hansard, where it was answered for the hon. member for Peel. The purchase of the residential property at Washington has been completed, but the ambassador cannot dbtain occupation until November. It is the property that was described before the committee on external affairs.
With respect to the third question, I would as-k if it would be satisfactory to have a statement prepared. I believe the hon. member would like to know in what places we have both external affairs representatives and representatives of trade and commerce. That being so, I shall have a return prepared. It can be tabled if the hon. member wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
52. Portion of expenditure of the imperial economic committee, $14,500.	[DOT]
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister explain this item?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The imperial economic committee was reorganized in 1933 on the recommendation of the Skelton committee and took over the marketing intelligence notes, the commodity series and world surveys on production and trade formerly issued by the empire marketing board. In addition, it prepares reports to governments on special subjects. Throughout the war, subscriptions were reduced in view of the limited amount of work that could be done. The committee is now planning resumption of the work and subscriptions are to be resumed. At first they are to continue on the reduced basis until work can be extended.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is a committee based in London?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Yes, a committee
composed of representatives of the United Kingdom government and other members of the commonwealth. The expenses are shared by the members of the commonwealth, and the services are available to all of them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
55. Provisional international civil aviation organization, $1125,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that there
is a change of one word in the name of this organization. It is no longer provisional. May I ask the nature of the expenditure? Is it a portion of the expenditure, or a grant. What is the reason for the increase?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The hon. member
knows that the convention on international
civil aviation was drawn up in Chicago in December, 1944, and made provision for the establishment of this organization upon ratification by twenty-six of the signatory states. The twenty-sixth ratification was received this year and the international civil aviation organization came into existence on April 4, 1947. Thirty-eight ratifications have been received. This amount is our proportion of the budget of the organization.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Marine service-
425. River fit. Lawrence ship channel; contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital, $l,02t2yl50.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps on this item I may be out of order in what I wish to say, although I do not think I am. I am going to speak about the Richelieu river, which is part of the St. Lawrence canal system.
When I was last in Sorel, in September, 1946, I had the joy and pleasure of spending a few hours with the late Hon. Mr. Cardin, for whom I always had a warm feeling, one which I knew he reciprocated. At that time I was in Sorel making a survey in connection with the Richelieu river.
On this occasion I am going to ask the minister, as I have on one or two earlier occasions, to interest himself in the problem of completing the canalization of the Richelieu river. In my judgment it is nothing short of an outrage against navigation on the Richelieu river for conditions which have remained there for so long to remain longer.
It will not take long to tell about it. The minister has been there, and he knows that a steamer of perhaps 2,000 tons, the ordinary lake steamer operated by the Canada Steamship Lines, can ascend the Richelieu river as far as St. Ours. At St. Ours the river is dammed, although it is a poor dam, and is just a barrier across the river. Ships can go no farther without going through St. Ours lock. That lock, I believe, is about 339 feet long by 45 feet wide, and has a 12-foot draught. The amazing picture is that, once they have passed through St. Ours, reaching the Chambly basin, they cannot proceed up the canal any farther. The Chambly canal from the Chambly basin up to St. Johns has about nine small locks approximately 120 feet long by 23 feet wide, with a draught of six feet six inches.
That creates a vicious bottle-neck in transportion on the Richelieu river from Montreal to New York. I am convinced that if the Richelieu river were properly equipped with
Supply- Transport

draught and locks equal to St. Ours, as it should have been long ago, there would be large increases in transportation and commerce which would benefit Sorel, St. Johns and Montreal. After you pass St. Johns going south, there is a 12 foot draught through lake Champlain and through the Champlain canal right down to Albany. After you pass Albany there is a much deeper draught to New York.
I am going to ask the minister to interest himself, as did the former minister who represented that constituency for many years, in this matter. I supported the late minister years ago when he diffidently, almost timidly asked for a vote to build the Fryer's dam north of St. Johns in order to raise the water level at that point to twelve feet, so that ships could come down from lake Champlain as far as the dam. I am going to ask the minister to interest his engineers in this. I am sure the plans are already in the department. This transportation route should be completed and it is an outrage that it was not completed long ago. The Richelieu river constituted one of our first transportation routes and it is the most neglected of all our routes, at least in the east.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The hon. gentleman is quite right about that being a bottleneck on the Richelieu. I will not attempt to say that I am as familiar as he is with the situation, but in the last few months I have interested myself in the project because of delegations and representations I have received. Perhaps the hon. gentleman is aware that a joint report was made some years back-I do not remember the date which stipulated that until the St. Lawrence waterway had been finally developed to a 35-foot depth all the way, it would not be advisable to undertake the deepening of the Richelieu. I may not be using the exact words of the report, but that is their gist. Because of that finding, the engineers of the department have taken the stand that it would be preferable to await the completion of the other project, and I am sure my hon. friend is as familiar as I am as to when the time of completion will be.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am going to ask the minister not to take the word of his engineers. The words they use may not be their own, and I am afraid they are the result of some campaign in opposition to Richelieu river transportation.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the report.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am opposed to the report.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope I made myself clear. That is the report of a joint board of Canadian and United States engineers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have all the reports and I oppose the report as strongly as I can. It is nothing but nonsense to have a 12-foot draft to St. Ours and from then on have only a aix foot six inch draft, and then, after passing St. Johns, to have a 12-foot draft right down to Albany. Anyone who opposes the completion of that canal is not working in the best interests of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: The joint board did not oppose it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If I were the minister I would see that they changed their opinion and got on with the completion of the canal, so that ships could come up from Albany right to the river St. Lawrence where there is a 30-foot draft. The St. Lawrence canal has in my judgment nothing to do with this. This is part of the over-all picture with which I am familiar. Part of that picture is a 12-foot draft right up to Sorel from Albany. I am going to ask the minister again to pay no attention -I do not mean this unkindly-to his engineers if they oppose completion; let him tell the engineers what to do.
I am sure if he does that I will do my beet from this side of the house to support the completion of the canal with a 12doot draft to Sorel. I am convinced that this would mean increased transportation business all along the river. This river has been neglected for too many years. The draft in some of the locks is too shallow; the locks themselves are only twenty-three feet wide, and some of them will not take a boat more than 120 feet long. That is quite a small boat. The only boats that can use this canal are the small oil boats. This draft should be the same as that in the St. Ours lock, and that would mean increased traffic right from Albany to Quebec. Shipments from Three Rivers and elsewhere could be made in good-sized steamers rather than in the small driblets as at the present time. This would mean a great deal, not only for Quebec, but for the whole of Canada.
I know the minister is interested in our canals and you will not find such bottlenecks anywhere else as those that exist in the Canadian canal system. I will not take the time to name all the locks, but the Lachine is the first one out of Montreal, then the Soulanges, then Cornwall, and then the Williamsburg group and the Galops locks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.

Supply-Transport


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will be through in one minute. The canal system in Canada is important, and it is all very well to say "carried." There is a lot of stuff that is of no moment at all, but the canalization of the Richelieu river is a matter of great importance. It has been delayed long enough. The depths and the width and the draught of the canal locks are not uniform. A shipper sending a boat up to the great lakes must inquire about each lock and then judge what sized ship he can send up. I believe the smallest lock on the St. Lawrence is at Cornwall. I have great respect for the young minister, and I mean young in experience.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is right because he has been in the cabinet for only a few years.
I have been a long time at this business of transportation and I know these canals very well. As I say, I have a lot of respect for the young minister, and1 one of his ambitions should be to make the locks in the canal system uniform throughout. They are not today. I think I have said enough. I promised the late Hon. Mr. Cardin that I would again this session promote what I knew was nearest to his heart, the completion of the Richelieu canal system.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-	.
j,28. Hudson Bay railway-construction and improvements-capital, $10,500.
Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to ask a question in regard to stevedoring at the port of Churchill. My information is that shippers who wish to ship through that port this year some four and a half million feet of lumber had considerable difficulty in getting a stevedoring company to move the lumber from the railway cars on to shipboard. Has the minister any information on that?
Mr. CHEVRIEiR: The last information I have is very encouraging. I do not knoiy whether the hon, gentleman was in the house when I stated, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Saskatoon City, that, so far as mixed cargoes of lumber and grain were concerned, there wTas no difficulty at all. The national harbours board felt they could raise a sufficient number of stevedores. There was some difficulty as regards whole cargoes of lumber; but I am informed, although not officially, that there will be a sufficient labour force in the area to move the lumber that so far has offered itself for movement.


Percy Ellis Wright: My information is that the grain people had objected to the lumber being
loaded on grain boats and that this shipment of about four and a half million feet would have to secure a boat which carried only lumber. The boat has been obtained, provided that the necessary stevedoring can be done.


Lionel Chevrier: Stevedoring is not the responsibility of the national harbours board but the responsibility of the shippers. I am informed, however, that there will be a sufficient labour force to move the lumber cargo which is offering.


Mr. BRYCE:: Have the cattle sheds been removed at Churchill?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. That was the answer given in a return brought down in the house.


William Scottie Bryce: Why were they removed?


Lionel Chevrier: They were taken down to make room for the United States army when it was in there, and they have not been replaced.


William Scottie Bryce: AVill they be replaced so that cattle can be shipped out of Churchill?


Lionel Chevrier: If there is a demand for them they will be.


Mr. BURTON:: Can the minister give us the latest information as to the possibility of the maximum amount of grain and other products being shipped over the Churchill route?


Lionel Chevrier: The amount of grain that can be stored in the elevator at Churchill is two and a half million bushels. There has been a great deal of talk about shipping as many as sixteen or seventeen million bushels. The facilities are there to ship that much. The movement of the grain is the responsibility of the Canadian wheat board, I am informed1 by them that they expect to ship more than they did last season, but what amount I am not in a position to say.


Joseph William Burton: The road will have the necessary facilities?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the facilities are there to ship far more than two and a half million bushels.


Percy Ellis Wright: Information was given to me last year with regard to freight rates from points adjacent to Hudson Bay Junction to the port of Churchill on pulpwood as compared with the rates for a similar distance on pulpwood shipped from somewhere in the neighbourhood of Fort Frances. The figures I was given indicated-I am speaking from memory-that it cost approximately twice as
Sup-ply-Transport

much to ship pulpwood from the neighbourhood of Hudson Bay Junction to Churchill as it cost to ship a similar distance to Fort Frances. Has the minister any information on that? I was given to understand that was one of the reasons why it was difficult to use the port of Churchill for the export of poplar logs for making matches. There were inquiries from interests in Great Britain as to the export of poplar logs for that purpose, but they found that because of the high freight rate to Churchill as compared with shipments east they could not use the port of Churchill successfully. If there is that difference-and I have reason to believe there is-I think the minister should look into the matter and see just what the reason for it is.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member knows, of course, that the classification of freight rates is perhaps the. most complicated thing there is, and I would not attempt to answer his question offhand. I know there are no export and import rates in existence on the Hudson Bay railway, but I shall be glad to inquire into the case he has mentioned and send him a note on it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
*iSO. Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-construction and improvement of terminal facilities-capital (estimated cost $5,964,000) (revote, $1,815,000), $4,000,000.
Mr. McLURE:: What proportion of this $4,000,000 for the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals will be for the car ferry?


Lionel Chevrier: None of this vote is for the car ferry. It is all for the terminals at Tormentine and Borden.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That is what I thought it might be, but it says "car ferry". Are the terminals at Tormentine completed? The terminals on the Borden side are only just started. Have contracts been let for them?


Lionel Chevrier: Contracts have been let in both cases.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The contract for the Borden side has been let to two different contractors,
I understand.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Would the minister state the amount of each of these contracts?


Lionel Chevrier: One is let to Canadian Dredge and Dock Company and the other to Foundation Maritime Limited. The contracts are: the former. $747,512, and the latter, $1,409,571.
rMr. Wright.]


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Does the minister consider that a sufficient amount for the terminals at Borden, or will a further sum have to be voted to complete them?


Lionel Chevrier: According to the engineers who made the survey and prepared the estimate of costs, this vote will take care of the contract, but there will perhaps be required a small additional amount.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will it be practicable for the new car ferry to load and unload at Borden while the work on the terminals is going on?


Lionel Chevrier: It will be extremely difficult. The contract has been given to repair the terminals, and the ship must dock at these terminals. I understand that arrangements are being made to dock the ship in the usual way, but it is going to hold up the work.


[Stage Direction]
National harbours board-
478. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 4947 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Saint John	 $125,000
Quebec	149,000
Generally-unforeseen and miscellaneous	 200,000
[Stage Direction]
Less amount to be expended from replacement
funds	 222,500
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain to the committee whether there are any plans for modernizing the national ports of Canada? I believe there has been practically no work of that kind done for seven or eight years, perhaps longer than that. There is great concern in some of the ports about modernization programmes being undertaken.


Lionel Chevrier: There are under consideration and continually under review plans for the betterment of the national harbours board facilities in frhis country. Since 1935, the national harbours board has spent in various provinces of Canada not less than $17,500,000 of capital money for the extension, improvement and establishment of new facilities.


Howard Charles Green: In what years was that spent?


Lionel Chevrier: From 1935 down to date.

Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: There has been nothing spent since 1939.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there has. I have not the figures before me but I could get them fairly quickly.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to know that.


Lionel Chevrier: It runs from a quarter to half a million dollars a year since 1939. It was half a million dollars in the last three or four years and a million dollars from the beginning of the war to that time.


Howard Charles Green: Over all the war years?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: That is spread over all the different national ports.


Lionel Chevrier: Spread over the different national ports. I-n this year's estimates there are votes for projects which will run into well over $7 million.


Howard Charles Green: What amounts by way of capital improvements are under contemplation for the current year?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot give that offhand. For instance, there is for Saint John an item of 8125,000 for building a wharf, which will mean an additional expenditure. There is an item in Vancouver for some 1153,000. That is a preliminary expenditure.


Howard Charles Green: What for?


Lionel Chevrier: I can give that when we come to the item. We are dealing with another item now. We are dealing with item 478. There is an item dealing with Vancouver a little later on. I will give the details when we get to it, if desired.


Howard Charles Green: We are very much concerned in Vancouver about the fact that there is no local control over the harbour. As the minister knows, a recommendation was made by Sir Alexander Gibb in his national port survey of 1931 and 1932 for a form of local control. We are far removed from Ottawa and are not satisfied to have all the control centered here in the national harbours board.


Lionel Chevrier: But it is not.


Howard Charles Green: We think there should be some definite form of local control. At least there should be a committee on which the representatives of the various groups in the city who were interested in the harbour could sit; for example, labour, shipping interests, business, merchants and various other interests of the city. We have had that up time and again in the house, and the minister was asked to make a change of that kind when he
was in Vancouver in January. At that time apparently he would not do anything about it. What is the picture at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: I will tell the hon. gentleman, in the first place, that his statement that there is no local control is not quite correct. There is local control through the port manager. That is the idea of the whole set-up of the national harbours board. There is a centralized administration here in Ottawa which does business through its local port managers in each of the seven ports of Canada. That is local control. That port manager is in touch with the local situation. He knows what the shipping interests want; he knows what labour wants; he knows what the board of trade and the other various organizations are interested in.
With reference to the other matter that my hon. friend speaks of, it is true that Sir Alexander Gibb recommended advisory councils in these ports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1933.


Lionel Chevrier: In 1933. But there are a lot of things that are recommended in reports which the government does not see fit to adopt. I am not saying that the government will never consent to advisory councils in the harbour boards of this country, but thus far it has not seen fit to do that. I have visited Vancouver and Halifax. I know that what my hon. friend says is the feeling in some quarters but not in all. I have had representations right in the city of Vancouver saying, leave the thing as it is now. Before the position is changed, I want to be quite sure that we are not going to move toward a worse position than a better one. I can tell my hon. friend that the door is not closed and I am always open to conviction.


Howard Charles Green: Of course that is really just repeating the statement the minister made last year. It is quite obvious that the intention of the government is that there shall be no local board. Certainly that position is not satisfactory to the great majority of the people who are using the port of Vancouver. I should like to know what survey the minister has made of the situation and whether he has any reasons other than those that he has given this evening for refusing to set up a board, because they are very slim ones.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I need give any other reasons. I am not under any obligation to tell the hon. gentleman what the reasons are for the decision of the government. I do not think he will expect me to do that. But I can tell him the main thing that the port of Vancouver and, I think,
Supply-T ransport

most of the harbours are interested in is the development of business and traffic, and that important thing is right in the hands of the port manager.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has outlined no plan tonight for modernizing these great Canadian ports. These ports cannot stand still; they must be kept up to date.


Lionel Chevrier: They are not standing still.


Howard Charles Green: They must have new facilities all the time. The minister indicates no change at all tonight, no attempt to bring them up to date. We feel that if there were local people having some say in the planning of the port we would be far more likely to have the port kept up to date. Can the minister make any announcement about any plans for improving these ports?


Lionel Chevrier: I have already told the hon. gentleman that in this very year we have votes for projects costing over $7 million toward improving the facilities at these ports.


Howard Charles Green: Has a general plan been drawn up by the national harbours board toward which you are working?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us any idea what that plan is?


Lionel Chevrier: There are plans, but the hon. gentleman knows the plans that the harbours board work upon must be approved. They must be approved by the committee on reconstruction. They must have the approval of the engineers, and until they have, the national harbours board is not in a position to make them public. Should the board make an over-all plan public, a five-year or a ten-year plan, the way things are developing in the country today, they might have to change the plan after two years. I know of a situation in Montreal where a plan was announced for five years in connection with the building of a certain wharf, and because of a change in navigational plans the wharf had to be entirely changed. It is, therefore, not safe to announce a five-year or a ten-year or a twenty-year plan and lead the people to believe that we will do these works and then, for some good reason, have to alter them. I think that is dangerous. Therefore, rather than do that, what the board has been following is to have a plan for each particular harbour announced in the estimates. In these estimates there are certain works for Saint John, Halifax and Vancouver.


Thomas Reid: I would ask the minister to
consider the question of refinancing the debt of the New Westminster harbour commissioners. If one had time to place the whole picture of our harbour boards before the country I think it would be found to be a startling one, but I would point out that New Westminster is the only harbour board that paid interest charges in full up to 1939 when the war broke out. New Westminster is the only city and port in the entire country that has spent huge sums of money in the development of the port. Some years ago a bond issue was put out amounting to over S500.000 in connection with our port. Looking at the figures for some of the other ports, I find Halifax with an interest debt of over $3 million; Saint John, over $7 million of matured unpaid debt; Chicoutimi, $2,500,000; Quebec, $29,500,000 of matured interest unpaid, and Vancouver, over $5 million of matured interest unpaid. When I look at all these figures and consider the fact that in all cases there has been a refinancing this year, and then come to the port which I have the honour to represent and find that, as I have said, it is the only port in Canada which has paid its debt and, notwithstanding that, has not received the same consideration, I think I am justified in asking the minister to give it that consideration. Some of the principal becomes due this coming year. I would ask him to consider the question of refinancing in the case of New Westminster.


Lionel Chevrier: I am familiar with the problem to which the hon. gentleman refers, and I have studied it. Unfortunately, however, we have not been able to do much to assist him, although I feel strongly for him. It is a matter about which I hope something can be done, and I assure him again that I will look into it and see if we cannot find some solution.


Thomas Reid: Thank you.


Douglas King Hazen: All credit is due the municipality of New Westminster for what it has done in the respect indicated by the hon. member, but I must point out that he made a statement which is not correct when he said that New Westminster was the only municipality that had invested money in the development of its port. That statement is inaccurate, because the port of Saint John a good many years ago invested money-


Thomas Reid: I am glad to hear it.


Douglas King Hazen: -in the building of wharves and the development of its port.


John Ritchie MacNicol: About Toronto harbour-

Supply-T ransport


Thomas Reid: I have not it here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We have a new minister. He will make a good one by and by. About Toronto harbour, what draught of ships can now enter both the east and west entrances and sail through the bay, and what dockage depth have they?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot give that information now but I will get it. This is a national harbours boa:d item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are not many harbours that can beat Toronto as a national harbour.


Lionel Chevrier: Quite so. I will get the information.


Norman Jaques: May I ask the minister a question with reference to the railway service between the cities of Calgary and Edmonton?


Lionel Chevrier: That item will come later on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Deficits-transport-
1,79. Amount required to .provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1947-48 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 4947, $707,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I see that this item indicates, just as the item last year indicated, a deficit in respect of this service. When there are deficits in connection with canals that fact is not indicated, but when there is a deficit in connection with the car ferry service the fact is stated. Why should the word "deficit" appear here at all? The item should simply indicate that it is for the operation of the ferry service. If you designate it as a deficit in one case, why not in the other? Last year I was looking for a breakdown of this amount of $700,000 odd and I suppose we should get it. I am not going to ask for it tonight because it would be a huge question. May I say this, however. When the new boat is put on, I hope that the freight rates on trucks on the car ferry will be treated in such a way that the whole system of nine miles will be taken into account as if it were part of a national highway. I understand from press reports that the new ferry rates will go into operation as soon as the new boat is put on.


Lionel Chevrier: July 1.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I suppose they are in force now on the old boats. I should like to know what these rates are. The only information I saw was that they would be favourable, but no specific statement was made with reference to the trucks or the loads they carry.


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National authorities announced two or three days ago that the rates for trucks would be the same as on the Wood Islands, Cariboo ferry, and that commodities on trucks would 'be exempt, provided that they were products of the farm or fisheries.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I might mention one point in that connection which we were arguing last year. In my opinion, the Canadian National Railways should not make these rates. I submit that the Minister of Transport should set these rates in conjunction with the government of Prince Edward Island. They are the two parties to the contract, to whom we look for its fulfilment. If the Canadian National Railways take their direction from the Minister of Transport, should he authorize them, declaring that this must be treated as a highway, then the matter is settled.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister takes the attitude that he has no authority to fix rates. That is for the board of transport commissioners. That is the attitude I took in answer to a similar question by the hon. gentleman last year and it must be the answer this year. I am afraid I have to take the same attitude this year.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think that was pretty well threshed out 'before. We know that the terms of confederation in 1873 come first. The board of transport commissioners have no authority in that whatsoever. They have no right to set the rates. Why do they not set the rate from Charlottetown to St. Johns, Newfoundland? Because they have no authority.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to get into an argument with my hon. friend on that. But if the board of transport commissioners have no right to set rates, why does my hon. friend accept the rates set by them?


An hon. MEMBER:: They have to.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We have to accept them and take what we get.


Lionel Chevrier: They have fixed the rates.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Last year when the board went down to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, to hold their sittings on freight rates,
Supply-Transport

ithey themselves acknowledged that they did not have any authority.


Lionel Chevrier: No, they did not say that. They said they doubted whether they had; but they proceeded to fix them.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Well-


Lionel Chevrier: And they have again fixed them.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: But their chief legal man, Mr. Dysart, definitely made the statement, as he is reported, that they had no authority. Why should we accept it from them now, unless it is what we really want?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Deficits-
National harbours board-
480. To provide for payment to national harbours board, of the amount hereinafter set forth, to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest on dominion government advances and depreciation on capital structures) arising in the calendar year 1947, in the operation of the Churchill harbour, $83,641.
John Ritchie MacNicol: How is this deficit made up?


Lionel Chevrier: It is an operation deficit. Mr. MacNICOL: Operating what?


Lionel Chevrier: Operating revenue for the year 1947 is $80,000, and the maintenance and expenses amount to $163,641. The operating deficit is, therefore, $83,641.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That does not include any repairs to either docks or roundhouses?


Lionel Chevrier: All current repairs.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That does not take into account any of the dredging?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Norman Jaques: Will the minister tell me when we reach the item I am interested in?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; I will tell the hon. gentleman when we reach the item he wishes to discuss.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Deficits-National harbours board-
482. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1947 on any or all of the following accounts: Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Montreal	 $419,500
Vancouver	 153,800
[Stage Direction]
Less amount to be expended from replacement
funds	 41,800
Howard Charles Green: That includes two payments, one for the port of Montreal and one for the port of "Vancouver. Has any arrangement been made within the last few weeks with regard to the Second Narrows bridge in Vancouver? A newspaper report on June 16 said in the headnote, "May cut bridge charge; government makes offer," and read in part as follows:
Second Narrows bridge will probably be returned debt-free and in good condition to its original bondholders, Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company by the end of 19511.
This is expected following an announcement made in Ottawa today by Hon. Lionel Chevrier, Minister of Transport.
Can the minister explain the facts with regard to that report?


Lionel Chevrier: What happened was that there was a refinancing of the debt. The matter was studied over a period of years. I have the facts here. It is a fairly involved matter which I should not like to go into, but representations bad been made by a number of people, by the various public bodies there, and by members from this side of the house.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: The hon. member for Vancouver North.


Lionel Chevrier: By the hon. member for Vancouver North and by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is an Independent.


Lionel Chevrier: in addition to those I have mentioned. They asked' that there be a refunding of the moneys, or at least that there be a reduction in the interest from five per cent to 2J per cent. This money, which in amount was in the neighbourhood of one million and some thousand dollars, had been advanced by the predecessors of the national harbours board in order to provide for the building of the Second Narrows bridge. The board paid off the money lent from the banks bv its predecessors. It was paying a lower rate of interest than it was charging up to these people. It consented to reduce the rate from five per cent to 2f per cent upon certain terms and conditions. By that reduction it will hasten the return of the bridge to the owners. With the amount of tolls which are being collected today, I think in five years the bridge will be turned over to its original owners with full payment of the amount owing. I am just reminded of this which is important. There was a conditional offer. There were one or two conditions, the terms of which I have not before me. If those terms are met, then the offer stands. If they are not met, of course it may be necessary to withdraw the offer.

Sup-ply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Then, in effect, it is a
conditional offer subject to these special . conditions being met?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: It is a conditional offer?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. It is not conditional in so far as the reduction of interest is concerned; that is, the reduction of rate.


Howard Charles Green: What is conditional ?


James Sinclair: The
city and district of North Vancouver are grateful for this offer and are going to accept it, so that the hon. member can put his mind at ease.


Howard Charles Green: A strong request has been
made that cargo rates in the port of Vancouver be done away with. I believe that our port is the only one in which cargo rates are charged. What is the present position with regard to that?


Lionel Chevrier: That is true. There
are cargo rates in Vancouver; but there are no dockage charges such as there are in other ports. It is true that representations have been made asking that these be removed. The average charge is small and, when compared with the rates in the Pacific coast ports of Seattle, Tacoma and San Francisco, the rates in the port of Vancouver are much lower.


Howard Charles Green: We consider it unfair that
we should have to pay cargo rates when none of the other national ports are charging them. I do not think it is fair to maintain them because they may have them in Seattle and Portland.


Lionel Chevrier: The totality of the
charges in Vancouver is less than in Pacific Coast ports and no higher than in eastern ports.


Howard Charles Green: That is not the submission
made by the Vancouver people. Will the minister have any special investigation made into that question of cargo rates?


Lionel Chevrier: The charges have not
been touched since the national harbours board took over. Local boards and local bodies fixed those rates, and we have not increased them in any way, notwithstanding the fact that all other things have gone up and applications have been made for increases in many transportation services.


Howard Charles Green: This is just another good
example of why there should be some local
control of the Vancouver harbour. This ousiness of control from three thousand miles away simply is not good enough.


Lionel Chevrier: It was local control
that put the rates on.


Howard Charles Green: That was a condition many years ago before the national harbours board was set up. Under present conditions, we feel that these rates should be taken off; and we shall not be satisfied until there is some sort of local control set up in this regard.


James Sinclair: The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned the Second Narrows bridge. The oity and district of North Vancouver, who are the bondholders concerned, are most grateful to the minister for the, reduction of the interest rate from five per cent to two and three quarters per cent after seven years of negotiation, and have gladly accepted the condition that all revenues be applied to the reduction of the loan so that they will return the bridge to the owners in four years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 7, 1947