Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege touching a matter in which the veracity of Sir Lyman Poore Duff, the former Chief Justice of Canada, and myself as Prime Minister of Canada, was called into question, I wish to draw the attention of the house to certain statements to which I am now in a position to give an answer which I hope will be accepted by the house without question.
The statements to which I take exception are the following, which refer to certain messages furnished by the government of the United Kingdom to the chief justice, as commissioner in the Hong Kong inquiry. Mr. George Drew is quoted in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of March 1, 1948, as follows:
Having regard to the messages which were placed before him, the finding of the commissioner is utterly incomprehensible . . . The impression is conveyed that the British government did not communicate any warning to the government of Canada. That is not so . . .
On March 2, 1948, as reported in Hansard at page 1771, on a question of privilege I spoke as follows:
In my opinion, such information as the Canadian government received, at the time, from the British authorities is in complete accord with the finding of the commissioner, Chief Justice Duff, in his report, namely, that "the best informed opinion available to the Canadian authorities was that hostilities would not arise in the near future."
In the Globe and Mail of March 3, 1948, Mr. George Drew is reported as follows:
Mr. King is simply piling falsehood on falsehood. The dispatches to which he refers left no doubt of the threat of war . . . That was the interpretation placed upon them by Major Power . . .
The house already has Major Power's statement, in which he said in this house that he did not state he believed war was imminent, that in fact he said in answer to a direct question that he thought war with Japan was not imminent.
However, as hon. members know, it was suggested that the British government should be appealed to direct, and asked the question if, since they were unwilling to have the dispatches made public, they would not give a definite indication as to the accuracy or the reverse of statements concerning their contents.
I rather hesitated to make any request of the British government in the matter. I felt that my word as Prime Minister of Canada would be accepted by this house and by the people of Canada. However, since there was always a possibility that the matter would be raised in the future and that there might be a doubt, I did eventually communicate with the Prime Minister of Great Britain in regard to the dispatches, and I have since received a reply from Mr. Attlee.
These communications were exchanged some little time ago; I did not bring them to the attention of the house at the time for the reason that the house had referred to the committee on printing the question of the advisability of printing the evidence in the Hong Kong inquiry. I felt that if I made public the communications before the committee had had its meeting, it might be considered that I was seeking to influence in some way the action which the committee should take. The committee's report was made to the house yesterday and I am now taking this immediate opportunity to place on Hansard the communications which passed between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and myself.
The following is the text of the telegram sent en clair by myself as the Prime Minister of Canada to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on April 13, 1948:
As you are aware there has been considerable discussion recently in the Canadian parliament on the question of publication of five telegrams exchanged between the United Kingdom and Canadian governments in 1941 with regard to the far eastern situation at or about the time of the dispatch of Canadian troops to Hong Kong which telegrams the United Kingdom authorities are unwilling to have published. On the 2nd March of the present year I referred in the House of Commons to a press Teport in which it was in effect alleged that one of these telegrams received after the government of Japan changed on the 16th October, 1941, and before the expedition sailed on the 27th October was in the nature of the most complete warning of the probability of early hostilities. I said that not only was such a statement not correct,
Hong Kong Inquiry

but that the fact was that before and after the expedition sailed, and indeed until the very eve of the Japanese attack, such information as I received from the British authorities was to the effect that an early attack on Hong Kong was not anticipated.
As the accuracy of ray statement has been challenged, I should be grateful for your opinion, which I might be free to communicate to our parliament, whether the information contained in .any of the telegrams, which the United Kingdom authorities communicated to the Canadian commissioner in the Hong Kong inquiry, on the condition that they would not be made public, is in any way at variance with my statement, and, in particular, my denial of the statement that after the government of Japan changed on the 16th October, 1941, and before the expedition sailed for Hong Kong on the 27th October, I received messages from the United Kingdom in the nature of a complete warning of the probability of early hostilities. What is obviously meant by early hostilities is hostile action by Japan directed against the United Kingdom, or, for that matter, against the United States.
The following is the text of the telegram from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to myself as Prime Minister of Canada. It is dated London, April 19, 1948:
I have carefully examined the telegrams with Tegard to the international situation in the far east which were shown to the commissioner in the Hong Kong inquiry. I understand that the question which lias been raised in Canada is whether these telegrams or any one of them gave warning that early hostile action by Japan against the United Kingdom or the United States was expected after the change of government in Japan on the 16th October, 1941, and before the Canadian expedition sailed for Hong Kong on the 27th October, 1941. As the Canadian government have been informed, and as has been stated in parliament here, the United Kingdom government regret that for reasons which have been made clear they feel unable to agree to the publication' of these telegrams. I can, however, confirm, that any such suggestion as has been mentioned is entirely contrary to the facts, and that none of the telegrams contained any warning that action by Japan of the kind was expected.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, a question on the point of privilege he has raised? Does this mean that the government of Great Britain and the government of Canada have agreed that these telegrams will now be made available to the public?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The telegrams mean exactly what they say, nothing more and nothing less.
On the orders of the day:


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any additional copies of the communication from Mr. Attlee, and his own communication, which he has read to the, house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Both will appear in Hansard. I have, however, my own copies here which I can send to my hon. friend.


Gordon Graydon: The reason I ask for these copies is that from time to time the house has been allowed to have little rays of light on this whole matter, and I fancy this only confuses the issue more than ever.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my hon. friend will now have the full light of day.
[Later :\


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that a careful reading of this letter more than ever demands, as far as the public of Canada and this parliament are concerned, that these telegrams be published.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Graydon: This only confuses the issue. It is not an answer at all.



REPORT ON SALARY INCREASES AND ESTABLISHMENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay on the table of the house the report on salary increases and establishment of the House of Commons.
[Later :3
On the orders of the day:


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: There is a point of information I feel the house would like to have. I shall not break the rule by asking Your Honour a question, but perhaps with your permission I may direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is the document that Mr. Speaker laid on the table today in connection with the House of Commons employees in the nature of a final act, or does it involve legislation being put through the house?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I am sorry, but I am afraid I do not know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not a member of the internal economy commission?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance, who is a member of the internal economy commission? I did not quite see the need for the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Perhaps the minister would give further consideration to the matter, because it

Business oj the House
seems to me this is one which concerns the House of Commons itself, and it could not be in the nature of a final act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps it is a question which Mr. Speaker could answer. My understanding is that the internal economy commission, of which I am a member and of which Mr. Speaker is chairman, deals with matters affecting the House of Commons and determines the establishment setting out the positions to be filled. The appointments made to those positions, whether permanent or temporary, come under the civil service commission.
I am not quite clear as to the nature of the document laid on the table, but I believe it has to be implemented by resolution of the house. However, I am not an expert in procedure, and perhaps Mr. Speaker could enlighten the house in the matter.


Mr. PEARKES:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Will the veterans preference apply in those appointments?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed the same rules apply in connection with the House of Commons as apply in other branches of the civil service.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is understood, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon the house will proceed with the debate on external affairs. In other years, as I recall it, the debate opened with His Honour the Speaker in the chair in order to permit of a more orderly presentation at the earliest stage. Today being Thursday, the position is, of course, that under the rules His Honour the Speaker leaves the chair without the question being put. If the house desires that the debate this year proceed along the same line as in former years, it would be necessary to have a motion that would direct that His Honour the Speaker should not leave the chair, notwithstanding the rule which governs.
Let me make it quite clear to hon. members that as no announcement has been made to the effect that the Speaker would be in the chair, or that the house might so wish, if there is any feeling to the contrary the debate can proceed at once with the house in committee. I believe, however, we should make better headway in the end, and have a more effective presentation of all sides of external affairs problems,, were the debate to be opened in the manner I have described. If later hon.
members wish to have the house go into committee to take up questions individually, this might be so arranged. I understand the intention is that once the debate is over and the committee discussion begins, the estimates will be referred to the committee on external affairs for further consideration before they come back to the house. Before putting any motion, however, I should like to hear what hon. members have to say.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal to commend the Prime Minister's suggestion of having a full dress debate on external affairs with the Speaker in the chair. I believe that is what was asked for and what the house expected. What the Prime Minister has said makes it much easier for us to agree to his suggestion. He said that if at the end of the discussion hon. members desire to ask questions, they will have an opportunity which would not be available in a full dress debate and which will be available if we then go to the committee stage. On that understanding I think we ought to accept the suggestion which has been made.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it will make for more orderly debate if hon. members may speak without interruption, the usual rules prevailing. As the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) said, I believe it would meet the situation if, at the conclusion of the speeches, should questions need to be asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), they may be asked then. I think that is the best way in which to conduct the debate.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can have a much more dignified full dress debate if the Speaker remains in the chair, and questions can be asked in committee of the whole.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the provision of standing order 28 relative to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question put be suspended for the present sitting of the house in order to allow debate on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Ella Margaret McLaughlin Baisley.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Mavis Aurelia Leney Ogilvie Walker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Joanna Wright Farrell.-Mr. Maybank.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Margaret Patricia Jones Gavey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Selma Rattner Fridhandler.-Mr. Maybank.


Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: I rise t.o a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 4 on yesterday's order paper, which stood in my name and was answered yesterday, was not answered correctly. The question was:
Of the twenty national housing conversions effected in the Hamilton, Ontario, district, what items were salvaged in each conversion and what were the estimated values of same?
The answer started out with the statement that "when the administration of the twenty conversion projects was turned over to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on January 1, 1946, the following items of salvage were in storage for disposal." My question asked for a list of items that were salvaged and the value of same from each conversion, not as of January 1, 1946.
I also wish to point out that only eleven of the twenty projects were listed. I know this is not complete, because I have a letter from Mr. Murchison, general supervisor, real estate division, dated March 16, 1948, giving me the value of salvage on a project not listed in the answer of yesterday. I would ask that my question be returned to the order paper until it is completed.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: 1.	In sessional paper No. 29 D dated March 23, 1948, in answer to a question asked by myself, the Department of Finance indicated that the securities investment fund from August, 1947, to January, 1948, inclusive, had purchased a net amount of approximately $300,000,009 of Dominion of Canada bonds; under what authority is this fund set up?
2.	How much does it amount to?
3.	How is it invested?
4.	Were the bond purchases made by the various government departments set out in this return made independently of each other, or were they made in conjunction with, or under the supervision of, the Department of Finance?


Mr. BELZILE:: 1.	The securities investment account was set up and is maintained under the authority of

the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act and the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931.
2 and 3. $650,779,500 par value of securities of Canada.
4.	The purchases of securities by the various government departments were made independently of the Department of Finance. However, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act provide for the creation of investment committees. A representative of the Department of Finance is a member of these two investment committees.


COMBINES INVESTIGATIONS-DENTAL COMPANIES- COUNSEL
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the estimated total cost incurred by the combines investigation department and the Department of Justice in connection with the investigation of the various dental companies against whom prosecutions have recently terminated, giving a break down and particulars thereof?
2.	Who were the legal counsel at the trial ?
3.	How much was paid or agreed to be paid to each of said co-unsel per diem as fees and living or other expenses?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The total cost of the investigation was $8,252.92, with details as follows:
Legal fees and expenses	$3,516	01Reporting services and expenses	
1,805	00Travelling expenses	
1,126	55Printing of report	
1,654	34Miscellaneous	
151	022.	D. L. McCarthy, Iv.C., Toronto; Peter Wright, Toronto; Donald Keith, Toronto.3.	D. L. McCarthy, K. C.-$250 per day [DOT]when in court and $10 an hour for preparatory work.
Peter Wright-$100 a day when in court and $10 an hour for preparatory work.
Donald Keith-$50 per day in court and $5 per hour for preparatory work.


INCOME TAX-FARMERS
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What amount of income tax has been collected in each province each year since January 1, 1939?
2.	What amount wras paid each year by farmers in the various provinces, and how many farmers contributed each year in each province?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	See statement forming part of this answer.
2.	No information, as the taxation division does not maintain records of tax collections by occupational classifications.
INCOME TAX-NET COLLECTIONS Fiscal Years Endino March 31 Individual Income Tax Collections
-	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948$	*	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$Prince Edward Island	42,161	120,871	226,813	483,893	591,347	1,157,775	1,353,927	1,286,163	1,375,989	1,236,995Nova Scotia	936,217	950,393	2,567,981	8,884,184	16,310,837	26,797,390	25,541,461	21,522,541	19,785,823	15,492,763New Brunswick	635,335	720,050	1,796,748	5,834,096	8,816,323	13,360,548	13,947,842	13,381,600	13,640,645	11,853,532Quebec	15,016,223	15,794,002	31,563,772	79,187,566	149,319,074	210,354,179	190,834,732	174,224,778	175,830,052	171,773,056Ontario	24,453,724	21,775,246	50,338,737	146,906,862	261,167,282	380,379,713	364,791,086	316,744,114	314,936,990	302,406,377Manitoba	1,433,112	1,447,457	4,070,899	13,002,356	22,061,338	34,840,084	30,867,765	36,599,998	36,565,759	33,095,159Saskatchewan	290,125	340,192	1,280,623	4,425,455	8,177,793	14,525,921	17,703,639	22,487,369	23,435,170	22,893,141Alberta	868,566	993,101	3,146,406	9,886,505	16,357,848	32,143,747	32,018,333	31,801,739	35,124,816	30,858,199British Columbia	2,883,952	2,833,623	8,228,571	26,979,023	50,646,780	95,109,123	80,002,011	70,787,546	70,605,889	66,517,175Yukon	27,618	32,509	85,742	281,792	466,421	891,392	809,903	581,050	668,039	714,356Head Office	4,416	1,414	1,957	2,553	16	4,890	25,623	29,865	20,058	32,650Totals	46,591,449	45,008,858	103,308,249	295,874,285	533,915,059	809,570,762	763,896,322	689,506,763	691,989,230	656,873,403Corporation Income Tax Collections	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948$	$	$	$	s	8	*	$	S	$Prince Edward Island	290,481	211,308	314,772	263,733	815,994	549,933	630,623	714,670	681,755	686,984Nova Scotia	1,352,311	1,097,559	1,926,852	2,655,727	5,263,936	3,944,078	3,810,146	4,504,076	4,433,202	7,711,449New Brunswick	928,365	573,546	1,278,987	2,308,780	3,271,427	3,930,395	3,806,036	3,151,310	3,306,712	6,414,309Quebec	21,559,118	19,836,604	36,565,972	69,046,153	131,067,863	127,786,553	107,639,412	72,989,429	52,621,486	107,480,594Ontario	49,400,775	45,689,419	74,248,489	90,846,409	167,189,766	138,565,206	124,137,103	99,021,902	93,462,446	150,466,340Manitoba	2,479,429	2,127,024	3,298,488	5,379,018	9,835,211	10,159,911	11,261,897	11,235,517	11,661,440	16,300,637Saskatchewan	206,609	213,173	458,602	640,489	1,161,615	1,325,798	1,792,709	1,563,345	2,207,142	4,665,839Alberta	1,347,707	1,875,969	2,685,735	2,934,560	6,127,392	6,651,768	7,252,753	5,469,692	5,578,262	9,127,855British Columbia	7,598,608	6,227,923	10,691,465	11,729,942	23,185,431	18,149,497	15,933,2,54	19,158,666	22,920,812	48,621,456Yukon	18,864	58,021	94,190	30,834	51,082	304,438	93,929	-18,437*	-31,478*	18,403Head Office	3,620	9,456	2,158	54	6	11,137	45,927	43,370	-22,526*	41,140Totals	85,185,887	77,920,002	131,565,710	185,835,699	347,969,723	311,378,714	276,403,849	217,833,540	196,819,253	351,535,006
* Debit amounts.

Questions
Questions


HEALTH AND WELFARE-VENEREAL DISEASE
Mr. McGARRY:: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare undertaken any special studies on the problem of venereal diseases?


Mr. MAYBANK:: The division of venereal disease control is conducting a study on the effectiveness of the anti-arsenical compound BAL (British. anti-Lewisite). This is used in the treatment of toxic reactions resulting from arsenical compounds administered in the treatment of syphilis.
As the provincial venereal disease control clinics have no facilities for testing the toxicity, physical and chemical properties of arsphena-mines and related products, the food and drug division of the Department of National Health and Welfare undertook the testing of stocks of these products on hand in the V.D. control clinics throughout Canada. The purpose was to ascertain the stability of these products under varying conditions of storage and to check the effectiveness of the regulations jnder which the department controls the release of these products in Canada.
The laboratory of hygiene of the Department of National Health and Welfare is participating in a co-operative effort with the provincial public health laboratories to ensure i uniform service in the diagnosis of syphilis, with a view to facilitating the control of the disease. Reagents used in the blood test for syphilis are prepared and standardized at the laboratory of hygiene for distribution to the provinces. Collaborative studies to evaluate the accuracy of the blood tests, as carried out in each laboratory, are conducted from time to time. New and improved methods of diagnosis are being investigated. The directors of all provincial public health laboratories have by unanimous resolution accepted the laboratory of hygiene as the national referee laboratory for this work.


FREIGHT RATES INCREASES-GRAIN SHIPPED TO INTERIOR ELEVATORS FOR CLEANING, ETC.
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	Will grain shipped to interior elevators in western Canada for cleaning, drying or storing be subject to any part of the recent 21 per cent increase in freight rates?
2.	If so, give details as to how rates will be applied.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


BANK OF CANADA-PURCHASE OF DOMINION BONDS
Mr. McMASTER:: 
Mr. BELZILE:: 1, 2 and 3. These questions relate to the internal business of the Bank of Canada and the information is not of government record. However it may be pointed out that changes in market quotations for securities do not necessarily mean that profits or losses are experienced by the holders of such securities. Whether profits or losses are realized depends on whether a security has been bought at one price and actually sold at a different price.


FREIGHT RATES INCREASES-BARLEY FOR MALTING PURPOSES
Mr. WRIGHT:: Will the 21 per cent increase in freight rates apply to barley shipped for malting purposes to malting companies at interior points?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: No.


FREIGHT RATES INCREASES-OATS, FLAX, ETC., SHIPPED TO PROCESSING PLANTS
Percy Ellis Wright: Will the 21 per cent increase in freight rates apply to oats, flax, rapeseed shipped direct to processing plants?


Lionel Chevrier: No as to oats and flax; yes as to rapeseed.


PENSION COMMISSION-VETERAN S AFFAIRS INVESTIGATORS
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian pension commission?
2.	With reference to each member, what is (a) his age; (b) date of appointment; (c) military service; (d) occupation preceding appointment; (e) salary?
3.	How many investigators are employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
4.	Of these (a) how many are dual service veterans; (b) how many served in Canada only?


Mr. GREGG:: 1 and 2. See statement forming part of this answer.
3.	100 male, 21 female; total, 121.
4.	(a) 13; (b) 7.
1.
Name
Chairman-J. L. Melville, C.B.E., M.C., E.D.
Deputy
Chairman-H. A. L. Conn, M.C., B.A	
Members -C. B. Reilly, K.C	
O. F. B. Langelier, M.C	
Harry Bray	
F.	F. Chute, B.A., M.D.,
J. K. Matheson, M.C...,	
H. M. Barnes, B.A., M.D., C.M	
H. A. Bridges, M.A., (Oxon), B.C.L	
R. J. Gordon, M.D., H.P.H., F.A.C.P	
It. E. Wodehouse, O.B.E., M.D., D.P.II...
N. L. Pickersgill, V.D	
J. M. Forman, D.F.C., Croix de Guerre....
C. M. Keillor, M.D	
G.	E. Leprohon	
Note:-Each Commissioner had service in a theatre of
(c)
War service
28.	2.16 - 7.10.19 14. 4.40 - 31.10.43
9. 1.15 - 10. 5.19
29.12.15 - 18. 6.17
9. 6.15 - 22. 5.19
19. 3.17 - 3. 2.19
9.11.15	- 23.11.18
3.	9.15 - 16. 7.19
29.	3.15 - 22. 4.16 7. 3.17 - 4.10.17
25. 5.16 - 11. 6.19
8.11.15	- 1. 8.18
4.	8.14 - 20. 8.19
4. 1.17 - 1. 4.19 2. 9.39 - 18. 3.46 2. 7.40 - 26. 3.45
28. 1.15 - 26. 5.15 (CEF) Royal Army Medical Corps, 2 years, 5 months.
(d) Occupation preceding appointment	(o) Annual salary
	$
Army-Overseas		10,000
Barrister-at-La w		8,000
Barrister-at-Law		7,000
Civil Servant		7,000
Civil Servant		7,000
Practising physician		7,000
General Manager, Exhibition	7,000
Association. Civil Servant		7,000
Civil Servant		7,000
Civil Servant		7,000
Civil Servant		7,000
Navy-Overseas		7,000
R.C.A.F.-Overseas		7,000
Civil Servant		7,000
10.12.17 - 15. 2.19 (CEF) 15. 6.40 - 31.12.41 1. 9.15 - 17. 3.19 14. 8.40 - 12. 9.44
Civil Servant

e
7,000

Inquiries of the Ministry


COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Can the Prime Minister give the house some indication of what progress is being made in the discussion, formal or otherwise, relating to what the newspapers speak of as an impending conference of prime ministers of the British commonwealth?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can say to my hon. friend that there have been no communications of an official character that I know of in regard to the matter. I think a careful reading of the dispatch to which my hon. friend refers will indicate that Prime Minister Attlee himself was not saying there was to be a conference but rather indicated that nothing thus far had been said about one.


Gordon Graydon: My reading of that communication was that there had been some informal discussions with respect to it, but I am glad to have the answer of my right hon. friend.


EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he or the government expect to be able to make some announcement with respect to the mission upon which he went to Washington last week end, in connection with the European recovery program.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: One of the purposes of my trip to Washington was to make contact with those responsible for the administration of the European recovery program, and to establish Canada's interest in that program. I succeeded in meeting practically all those associated with the administration of the program; the program was discussed, and I feel certain that Canada's position is thoroughly understood.


FLOOD CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RENE N. JUTRAS (Provencher): My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister

aware that the disastrous flood in Manitoba particularly in the southern portion, has been caused to a very large degree by foreign waters flowing north into the province, and that this disaster is a recurrent affair? Will the minister ascertain and tell the house whether the terms of reference which were issued to the international joint commission in January of this year, to investigate and report on the drainage basin of the Red river, are broad enough to allow the commission to make a complete recommendation with a view to preventing the recurrence of such floods?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I shall be glad to have the matters referred to in the hon. member's question investigated, and to report to the house after having done so.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with a question I submitted on January 30 last and again on March 10, which was passed as an order for return, as appears on page 1102 of Hansard. It relates to foreign exchange control and the seizure of funds at the border. Three months have elapsed since this question was first submitted. Can the minister advise me when it will be answered?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot, Mr. Speaker. I am familiar in a general way with the question, which involves a tremendous amount of work including the preparation of thousands of names. I am not in a position to say at the moment just what is the status of that question, but I will look into it and have a word with my hon. friend and let him know how it stands. Possibly we can arrange to eliminate some of the details in which he is not interested.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Can the Minister of Finance give us any indication or suggestion as to when the budget may be brought down?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot as yet. I have a tentative date in my own mind, but I am not in a position to announce it yet because

Inquiries of the Ministry
I am not sure whether I shall be able to bring it down then. I will make the announcement as soon as it is possible to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the minister tell us whether it will be before or after he goes to speak in Ontario county?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no arrangements to speak in Ontario county as yet, so I cannot answer my hon. friend's question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then there is very bad liaison in my hon. friend's party, because I understand he is already advertised to speak.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising out of a telegram received today from the mayor of Flin Flon. In view of the inadequacy of the post office facilities at that point, can the minister say when construction of the new federal building will be commenced?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: On Tuesday the hon. member for Churchill asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) whether we had purchased a site for that building, and the answer was in the negative. There is no vote in the estimates this year for that post office; therefore any date I might give for the beginning of the work would be simply guesswork. This project is considered along with many others all over the country, where the need is as great as at Flin Flon.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: If I may ask a supplementary question, when does the minister intend to construct the public building in North Vancouver for which there has been an item in the estimates for the last three years?


Alphonse Fournier: This question is not as difficult as the last one. In this case we had very good intentions, but I was informed that lack of material and manpower in that district hindered the progress of our work. As soon as that situation improves we will undertake it.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether his intentions are still as good in respect to a public building at Vanderhoof and one at Quesnel?


OATS AND BARLEY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting of the house the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough) asked whether, owing to a lack of definite information with regard to the export regulations applicable to oats and barley, I would make a statement to the house outlining the regulations governing the export of these two commodities.
My reply is that during the current crop year the export of whole oats and barley other than registered and certified seed was prohibited owing to the need of retaining sufficient supplies of feed in Canada.
It was considered advisable to ease the restrictions on the export of these cereals. Accordingly on April 1, 1948, the Canadian wheat board advised the trade that the export of limited quantities of oats and barley to any destination had been authorized and that applications for export permits would be considered as submitted.
When obtaining a permit it is necessary for the applicant to pay the equalization fee in effect when application is made and approved. Exporters must adhere to certain regulations as advised by the board from time to time, such as international emergency food committee allocations and foreign exchange control board regulations.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. A statement appears in the press this morning to the effect that $100 million is being spent by the United States for the improvement of northern defences. Of this amount. S611.570 is being spent for the enlargement of quarters and facilities at Frobisher Bay, Saskatchewan, and Fort Chimo, Quebec. Under what authority is this work being carried out? Has the Department of National Defence any supervision over the work?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked his question in a low voice and I found it difficult to hear him. I believe however that I can answer in a general way.
Under the declaration of the Prime Minister in the house on February 12, 1947, and an
343S
Supply-External Affairs

identical declaration made in the United States on the same day, arrangements for defence co-operation between the United States and Canada which had been in force during the war were continued.
Under those arrangements it is expressly stated that any activities in either country will be completely under the control of the country in which it is done, and will be done only after an express arrangement is made with regard to that work. If any work is being done in Canada, it is in accordance with that arrangement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister's department has no jurisdiction over it at all?


Brooke Claxton: On the contrary, it would be done only after arrangements had been completely worked out between representatives of Canada and the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am glad indeed to have, after several unexpected but inevitable delays, this opportunity to give the house a short review of world affairs as we see them in my department. This review will, of course, be neither exhaustive nor final. Naturally enough, in one statement it is not possible to refer to all the important questions that face us. If some of these questions must he omitted from this review, it is not because I do not appreciate their importance. There will, I hope, be other occasions during the session when these omissions can be repaired.
It is now, I believe, an accepted fact that practically everything of importance that happens in the international sphere is of interest to Canada-often of direct and immediate interest. For us there is no escape, even if we wish to seek one, in isolation or indifference. Recent events have brought home to all of us the increasing threat to our democratic national existence of the rising tide of totalitarian communism. We know that Canada's boundaries against such a threat extend far beyond her physical frontiers. We know also that a line is being drawn which runs through the hearts of free men everywhere, and that on our side of that line are all those in every country who work and fight to preserve the freedom and dignity of the individual against reactionary dictatorship,
whether communist or fascist. We know that there can be no neutrality in this conflict, which is as spiritual as it is political.
In the realm of economic and social welfare as well, it is clear as it never was before that we cannot live unto ourselves alone. Opinions may differ-I suppose they do differ-as to whether the economic and trade policies of this government are wise; but there will, I am sure, be no quarrel with the statement that they are now decisively influenced by events far beyond our borders.
Canadian representatives recently discussing the future of Indonesia at Lake Success, the future of international trade at Havana, or the future of a free press at Geneva, all bear witness to the fact that this country is now inevitably and inextricably involved in the full current of international events. The day has long since passed when we did not have to bother about the policies of other countries far away. When the activities of those other countries determine the prosperity, indeed the very existence of our own country, it is merely elementary prudence and common sense to concern ourselves with them.
The Canadian Department of External Affairs, both at home and abroad, exists for that very purpose. It represents a necessary and, I think, useful development, in the progress of this country from colonial status to national maturity. Its expansion-and it has not been allowed to grow carelessly and extravagantly reflects the magnitude and complexity of the relations between nations in this interdependent age and the increasing importance of these relations for Canada. In her participation in international affairs Canada will, I hope, act with resolution, with responsibility, and also with restraint. We should not evade our international duties; but in discharging them we should not be influenced unduly by national pride and prejudice. I hope that in our foreign relations we can reconcile our first duty to our own people with our ultimate obligations to the international community. In a frightened and suspicious world this is not always easy.
The most cursory survey of international events during the recent months gives one cause for concern, perhaps apprehension. This concern extends even to the very continuance of peace itself, and this less than three years after one atom bomb destroyed 70,000 human beings.
It is possible to recognize this fear and its causes as political realities without giving way to gloomy forebodings about the inevitability of an early war. Ostrich-like optimism and panicky pessimism are equally to be avoided.

Supply-External Affairs
Both would be a danger to our security. The fact remains, however, that the trend has unfortunately been away from peaceful co-operation and towards the division of one friendly world into two competing worlds.
The picture is much the same all over the world, much the same in Europe and in Asia. Let us look first at the European side. It seems to me that the most dramatic illustration of division and political deterioration in Europe has been the complete failure of the great powers to agree on even the basic problems of a German peace settlement. This failure has poisoned the political atmosphere and it certainly has hindered all movement toward the restoration and recovery of Europe's shattered economy. This failure itself is merely the result of the tragic inability of the western democracies and the eastern totalitarian states, led by the U.S.S.R., to establish any basis for co-operation or even any basis for mutual toleration.
We had hoped for mutual toleration founded on a genuine desire to live and let live. It seems now that we shall have to be content with toleration based on what I hope will be a healthy respect for the determination of each of us to prevent encroachment and resist domination by the other. But whatever may be its basis, without mutual toleration no satisfactory progress can be made in the political or economic rehabilitation of Europe or of the far east, or even in the development of the united nations into an agency which can maintain peace, guarantee security, and effectively promote human welfare.
Most of the troubles and fears of our day spring from this lack of trust, this absence of mutual toleration. The main although perhaps not the sole responsibility for this rests upon the aggressive and imperialistic policies of communism and on outside sponsorship and support of subversive communist fifth columns in many countries, more particularly in the countries of Europe. Even with close and friendly co-operation between the great powers the recovery of western Europe from the war would have been difficult. We must recognize that before 1939 western Europe depended for its efficiency on a very high degree of economic specialization. Long years of war and of enemy occupation have thrown this delicate mechanism almost entirely out of gear. Physical devastation, the depletion of economic resources, prolonged interruption of international trade, the loss of earnings from foreign investments, the loss of earnings from merchant fleets, are some of the factors which have contributed to the present precarious economic conditions in Europe.
To the destruction and dislocations of rvar- and we are beginning at la6t to realize how much greater these were than anybody imagined when the guns stopped firing-have been added difficulties of nature. We all know from what we have read that the winter of 1946-47 in Europe and in some parts of Asia was the worst for generations and would have set back the healing work of recovery even if there had not been these forces of division and disorder to which I have referred.
There is in all this a chain of vicious consequences, and these vicious consequences are exploited by Soviet-inspired communist parties for purposes which have unfortunately become all too familiar. Distress, starvation, even despair are stirred by the communists into political disorder and ideological strife. Every kind of inciting appeal is made, and the highest as well as the lowest motives are fully exploited for the purpose of retarding recovery and preventing progress. Starvation thus becomes a weapon of political warfare and misery, a political platform.
It is not enough, however, to blame the troubles of Europe-or of the rest of the world-on the destruction of war and on the subversive activity of communism. The free governments are themselves at fault if they are. hesitant to take the necessary social and political measures, or to show the energy, determination and solidarity required to make democracy into an efficient instrument for recovery and a dynamic political gospel. The ranks of democratic peoples must not be divided. Their energies must not be dissipated in domestic political conflict. The attractions of political manoeuvring become dangerous if they override the virtues of self-discipline and self-sacrifice in the face of national danger. Democratic leaders in all countries must realize that democracy does not mean merely the preservation of the status quo. Too often, the lead in energy, determination and zeal has been given by peoples who live and work in undemocratic regimes. To save democracy in Europe-or indeed anywhere else-we must demonstrate by deeds and not merely by words that democracy is a more dynamic and humanitarian creed than communism. No regime in Europe or anywhere else has the right to assistance merely because it proclaims itself the only barrier against communism. It must do much more than that. It must show that it can act promptly and resolutely to disperse by productive measures the accumulated forces of social discontent which communism so cunningly exploits wherever they exist. It is well for us to remember
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
these things as we view, with justified anxiety, the dark surge from behind the iron curtain.
Taking full advantage of economic misery, of political instability, and in certain cases, of the weak and divided political leadership of its opponents, communism in Europe has extended its authority under Soviet control and direction, over Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, and now, Czechoslovakia. Freedom, as we know it, but as most of these peoples have never known it, is now a more remote hope in those countries than it has ever been.
In the whole of southeastern Europe and the Balkans, only Greece and Turkey remain free from communist domination. In Greece, subversive revolutionary forces at home, aided by help from neighbouring communist states, have been held in check. At the moment, Greece is a key point in the struggle against aggressive Soviet-inspired communism, and is recognized as such by the British and United States governments. Turkey is another important sector of this front, and assistance is being given to her also in an effort to put her in a position to defend herself from threats and attacks from outside.
The tragedy of the countries of eastern Europe which have become victims of the dictatorship of the communist minority is that they have lost the great chance that victory gave them to establish free governments based on the popular will. They have sunk back into a different, but deeper, despotism than they have ever known before. They will soon learn that, if they do not know it already.
Czechoslovakia, however, is one country which had earned and deserved a better fate. The sordid details of the process by which the Czechoslovak people were despoiled in a few days of their hard won liberty and exemplary parliament democracy are too well known, too vivid in all our minds, to need recapitulation.
The pattern was already familiar enough. The communists, although a minority, were strong enough to obtain in a national government the ministries which give them control of the police, propaganda and the army. They then consolidated their position by appointing communists to key posts in the police and by gaining control of the trade unions through infiltration. Then, through the radio and the controlled press they discredited and undermined the influence of their chief opponents by falsely accusing them of treasonable activities. A political crisis was next artificially brought about. The communists then demonstrated beyond all possibility of doubt that they were both ready and

willing to use force to solve that crisis by seizing power themselves. The democratic parties and their leaders were faced, so they thought, with a choice between chaos and submission. Indeed, the choice was so influenced by the ominous attitude of a close and powerful neighbour that it could hardly be called choice at all.
Communist action committees, organized well in advance, then took charge of all activities, both national and local, from government ministries and the courts to factories and football teams. All the grim mechanism of the totalitarian state was swiftly brought into play-arrests of political opponents, prostitution of justice, control of the press, and intimidation of all non-communists. Wholesale purges of civil servants, editors, teachers, managers, and all persons of influence or responsibility were carried out. With power secured by such despotic methods, the communist government then made elaborate plans for an "election," an election in which the right to vote is a privilege reserved for those who will vote right-or rather left! Such an election is scheduled for May 30 in Czechoslovakia. Its results can be foretold with accuracy, and they will deceive no one.
The fate of Czechoslovakia is indeed a frightening case history of communist totalitarianism in action. It is well worth careful study. To understand the shock produced by the complete extinction of Czech democracy in a world not altogether unaccustomed to news of this nature, it is necessary to remember the length and the strength of the Czech democratic tradition and the peculiar significance it has long held for world democracy. Nowhere has the struggle for human freedom and liberal democracy been carried on more valiantly or more persistently than in the Bohemian lands. It was as the heirs of this great liberal and humane tradition that the Czech people were able in the twenty years between the two world wars to establish and preserve liberal democratic institutions which were a model to other less fortunate states.
The nazis were well aware that in conquering Czechoslovakia they were striking a formidable blow at world democracy. The communist dictators of today are equally conscious of the importance of the Czech democratic tradition to the western world. When the Czechs were forced by outside pressure to withdraw their acceptance of the invitation to participate in the discussions of the Marshall plan in Paris last September, it was clear that Czechoslovakia was not to be permitted to act as a bridge between west and

Supply-External Affairs
east. It has now become apparent to what lengths communist governments will go in preventing co-operation between the free and democratic west and the totalitarian governments of eastern Europe. The Czechs had loyally lived up to their obligations as a member of the Soviet bloc. They were a threat to no one. They were steadily and sturdily rebuilding their economy on a basis of democratic socialism. Yet their liberties have been ruthlessly wiped out by a Soviet-inspired communist fifth column.
Those in each free nation who love freedom should draw the clear lesson of the tragedy of Czechoslovakia. That lesson is that it is impossible to co-operate with communists. They do not want co-operation. They want domination. Communists will pretend to co-operate with non-communists just so long as it is in their interests to do so. But once they are in a position to seize power, they will seize it and will then discard or destroy their non-communist allies. People in Canada, the United States, France, Italy and other countries have been long in learning this lesson. Let us hope that they have now learned it well. The things that divide the democratic parties of the free states, by whatever names they call	themselves-Socialists,
Liberals, Catholics, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives-are as nothing compared with the gulf that separates them all from the communists.
Similarly, in international politics the things that divide the free and democratic nations of the world are as nothing compared with the gulf that separates these free and democratic nations from those subjected to the total tyranny of present-day communism.
The tragedy of Czechoslovakia in September 1938 and March 1939 was a prelude to war. The tragedy of Czechoslovakia in February 1948 need not be a prelude to war. It does, however, underline the necessity for the free states of the world to unite their material, their political and their moral resources to resist direct and indirect totalitarian aggression.
May I now cross the world to the far east.
The situation in the far east is, in the long run, hardly less menacing than that in Europe. During the years of Japanese aggression in east Asia serious strains were put upon the political, economic and social organization of that part of the world. The defeat and withdrawal of Japanese forces have left in the countries of the far east a legacy of political unrest and economic chaos. In circumstances such as these, the danger is particularly great that foreign penetration will be accomplished through local revolutionary forces.
The immediate need in the far east, therefore, is, as in Europe, a general peace settlement and the return of economic stability. As far as peace with Japan is concerned, the views of the Canadian government have already been made clear in the review which I gave the house on December 19 of the discussions that had taken place with regard to a Japanese peace conference. It has since then been made clear that the U.S.S.R. seeks to prevent countries other than the great powers from participating in any effective manner in preparing the Japanese treaty, and that procedures similar to those advocated by the U.S.S.R. for the peace settlement in Europe should, in the Soviet view, be adopted for Asia. These proposals we of course regard as unacceptable. It is the view of the Canadian government that an equitable settlement in the far east, reflecting the views of all the principally interested states, can be prepared only in a broadly representative conference where one or two countries do not have the power to block the wishes of the great majority. It is also the view of the Canadian government that the immediate menace of communism in the far east should not be met by the restoration of Japan to a position of such power that she can once again become a threat to peace.
I pass now to two brighter subjects- Canada's relations with the other nations of the British commonwealth and with the United States. First the British commonwealth.
Our relations with the United Kingdom and the other nations of the commonwealth, will, we always assume, and with good reason, be characterized by what is lacking in the world today, mutual confidence and understanding, frankness and good will. Constitutional issues, once of major importance in commonwealth relations, are now virtually things of the past. The principles of equality and complete autonomy are now the accepted postulates of policy for all member states of the commonwealth. The present status of all members is in fact well described in the phrase, now often used, as "independence within the commonwealth."
The commonwealth relationship has, however, never been and cannot remain static. The dangers and uncertainties of the present world situation have compelled Canada to assume greater responsibilities as a North American nation. For the same reasons the United Kingdom has boldly assumed the leadership in reorganizing the security and increasing the economic stability of western Europe. Australia and New Zealand are likewise
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
greatly concerned about security in the south western Pacific. Yet the assumption of special regional responsibilities by commonwealth nations has not weakened their general and close association.
The strength of this commonwealth association rests not in exclusive defence or economic arrangements among its members. Indeed in time of peace formal defence arrangements have been singularly lacking. The greatest strength of the commonwealth bond is the adherence of its members to its common ideals, their common political heritage which assures mutual understanding without the necessity of formal instruments of association; their common interest in promoting and defending their democratic way of life. These ties persist in spite of all changes in the world situation. Common dangers serve but to strengthen them. The commonwealth has twice proved its worth as a powerful instrument for the preservation of freedom for its members and for mankind. As such it remains.
A most significant change in membership in the commonwealth has occurred during the past year. What was once the empire of India has disappeared. In its place are three new nations of the commonwealth, India, Pakistan and Ceylon; while a dependency of the late Indian empire, Burma, has severed formal tie and become a separate republic. I think the good will relations will continue.
The India Independence Act and the Ceylon Independence Act passed last year, as members know, were but the final steps in the transfer to Indian peoples of the right of self-government which began many years ago. It is a matter of rejoicing among men of good will everywhere that the final stage was accomplished, not only without resort to violence, but with such evident good will and respect on either side. History scarcely affords a parallel of an imperial power abdicating sovereignty over subject peoples so generously and so speedily as Britain has done in India.
It does not detract from the merits of the settlement to note that the Indian peoples are in a very real sense the beneficiaries of a system of political freedom which developed here in North America. The first planting of representative institutions in the new world over three centuries ago in the colony of Virginia, the achievement of responsible government by Canada and Nova Scotia exactly one hundred years ago; the growth of autonomy in our external affairs which followed the first world war, are milestones in the development of Indian national freedom as in our own. This heritage of freedom within the commonwealth, the people of Canada, I think I may say, are glad to share with the peoples of India.

Under the India Independence Act, India and Pakistan have the right to leave the commonwealth if they so desire. We hope that they will not choose to do so, though the choice is solely theirs. The people of Canada esteem their membership in the commonwealth not merely for reasons of septiment or tradition, but for its positive advantage. In a world in which the values and virtues of our civilization are in jeopardy, this association of free nations is both a moral and a material bulwark against the forces of disorder and oppression. It is to be hoped that the peoples of India and Pakistan, like the people of Canada, will continue to find the commonwealth a worthwhile club to which to belong. But whatever their decision, and it is theirs, we wish them well, in the great future that is unfolding for them. We wish to be their friends.
I should, like to avoid mentioning one painful subject, but it would be unrealistic to do so. I refer to the serious friction which has developed between India and Pakistan over certain territorial areas, and to the dreadful communal rioting which has troubled both countries. Apart from our concern on humanitarian grounds that peace and order should prevail in that subcontinent, there is always the danger that others may be tempted to fish in troubled waters. Geographically, India and Pakistan lie on the frontiers of the free world. The freedom of their peoples is not unconnected with that of other freedom-loving peoples.
A course of action by which the Kashmir dispute might be settled has recently been adopted as a recommendation in the security council. The Canadian representative on the security council had some part in the preparation of this resolution, and he was associated with the group of members in whose names it was finally presented to the council for adoption. The positions taken by India and Pakistan were found to be so far apart that, in spite of repeated efforts, it was not possible to prepare a recommendation that would be acceptable to both parties. The members of the council who prepared the resolution endeavoured, therefore, to recommend a settlement by which the essential interests of both Pakistan and India, and Kashmir as well, could be protected. In voting for this recommendation the Canadian delegation has not attempted to express a judgment on the circumstances which have led to the present situation in Kashmir, but has merely assisted in formulating an impartial opinion as to procedures by which the Kashmir question might be settled. We are confident that our

Supply-External Affairs
friends in India and Pakistan, even though they do not consider that the Kashmir resolution fully meets their respective requirements, will nevertheless give weight to the procedure it suggests for resolving the difficulties, and will understand and appreciate the attitude of those states which participated in preparing the resolution.
A word now about our relations with our southern neighbour.
Canada's relations with the United States remain based on frankness, friendliness and good neighbourliness. We have, of course, many common problems, principally of finance, economics and security. We have also had some differences recently over incidents arising out of what we considered somewhat arbitrary United States administrative interference in certain trade and transportation matters. But we talk the same language even when we differ, and so we can always find a way of settling our differences and solving our problems. One source of whatever difficulties we have with our good neighbour is a flattering, if at times a trifle embarrassing, tendency on their part to consider us so much as one of themselves that, with the best of intentions, they occasionally forget that we are as sensitive as any nation about having control over our own affairs; if any country can be said to have control of its own affairs these days.
I know that we all recognize, however, that in a tense and dangerous world our mutual friendship and solidarity provide a strong foundation for the joint existence of Canada and the United States and for the conduct of our relations with each other. On the big issues we think and we are apt to act alike, because our two peoples have the same ideas and ideals, the same basic way of life. We react in the same way to any threat aimed at that way of life. That by itself would be enough to ensure our friendly co-operation apart from all the other influences that draw us close together.
Strategically we both recognize, I think, our mutual interdependence. Our joint defence measures are based on that fact. National defence alone is not enough in this day of new weapons and new methods of warfare. Collective defence is more than ever necessary.
Co-operative defence arrangements with a neighbouring state need not of course be inconsistent with collective defence within the terms of the charter of the united nations. Such measures are, in the present circumstances that confront our two countries, normal and necessary. They infringe no rights, inside or outside Canada. I can assure the house on this point. There is no threat to the control
of our own affairs in our collaboration with the United States on joint defence. The Canadian government is aware of the sensitiveness of our people in this regard. The United States government also is aware of it and respects it. It readily accepts, for instance, the position laid down formally in the joint statement of the two governments of February 12, 1947, that all joint defence undertakings on Canadian territory-and in passing I may say they are of a very limited character with very few United States personnel involved-shall be under Canadian control.
There are some who argue that the mere existence of these arrangements constitutes a provocation to other nations. This is an old and familiar contention often used in the past by aggressors to frighten their victims from joining together for defence. Before the war the nazis used it to confuse and weaken those whom they wished to destroy. Surely in the present international situation it would be the height of folly not to take, in consultation with our friends, such precautions as reason indicates to be vital to our security and to theirs in an emergency. Surely, too, it is apparent to all that those arrangements constitute a threat to no one, except to those who are deterred by them from committing any aggression. Finally, they are not inconsistent in any way with our obligations under the charter of the united nations.
This brings me to another and important phase of my review, the present position of the united nations.
The annual report of the government to parliament on the united nations is now being printed, and I hope to be able to present it to the house shortly. It will be, as last year, a general review of the activities of the united nations, with particular reference to the second session of the general assembly in New York. I will not attempt to cover the ground of that report in this statement, but there are two matters on which I feel sure you would wish me to comment without waiting for the report to be tabled. The first of these is the general policy of Canada toward the united nations; the second is the question of Palestine.
On repeated occasions the government has indicated that collective security through the operations of an effective international organization was a primary objective in the foreign policy of this country. This continues to be our policy. We are fully aware, however, of the inadequacy of the united nations at the present moment to provide the nations of the world with the security which they require. The realities of this situation must be faced,
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
and the policy of the government in respect of it may be summarized very briefly.
In the first place we shall not encourage or foster any activity which at this moment might provide any state with a legitimate- I emphasize the word "legitimate"-excuse to withdraw from the united nations. On the other hand, we shall not refrain from action which we know to be right merely because it displeases certain other members of the united nations. We shall continue to give every assistance to constructive efforts to make the united nations into the instrument for security and co-operation which it was originally designed to be, and in the meantime utilize its present possibilities to the fullest extent.
We will also oppose demands on the united nations which at the moment are too heavy for its resources. It should not, for instance, attempt to undertake administrative responsibilities and police activities in various parts of the world before it has been given the means which may be required for carrying out those responsibilities.
We must realize also that the effectiveness of the united nations is at the moment greatly reduced by the divisions which have grown up between the countries of eastern Europe and the countries of the rest of the world. Until there has been some measure of settlement of the issues that appear to divide the world, we should not expect too much from the united nations in its present form and organization. No one should expect, for instance, the machinery of the united nations to produce a solution for problems on which the two most powerful nations of the world may have diametrically opposed views that cannot be reconciled.
During the last two years our faith in the united nations as an effective organization for peace and security has been pretty severely shaken. What is unshaken is our determination to make of it, or within it, an effective organization for these purposes. Unshaken also is our faith that this can be achieved. It is therefore important that the united nations be kept in existence, and that we make every possible use of the very high degree of vitality which, in spite of these divergent opinions, it has shown. There are, for example, subjects such as the dispute in Kashmir, to which I have referred, and the difficulties which have arisen in Indonesia, which are not directly within the area of conflict between the eastern European states and the rest of the world, and where the machinery of the united nations has been used very effectively.
Our willingness to stand for, and our ability to secure, election to the security council last September was an earnest of our desire to

play our full part in the united nations. That part involves us in discussions and decisions on matters which once may have seemed to be remote from our interests. Although we know, as I have already said, that this remoteness is illusory, nevertheless this does not alter the fact that during the next year and a half Canada, as a member of the security council, will, at times, have to declare its position publicly on certain matters which previously might not have come to the attention of the government at all, or might have been dealt with confidentially through diplomatic channels.
The position of a power of the middle rank on the security council is under any circumstances a difficult one. A small power is in a sense by its very smallness relieved from much of the responsibility which participation in decisions involves, and which the implementation of such decisions requires. At the other extreme the great powers can protect their positions with the veto. A "middle country" such as Canada, however, is in a different position. Its economic strength and political influence are of importance, and its prestige is high. The material and moral contribution which Canada can make to collective action, as the last two wars have shown, is significant. The judgments which the Canadian government express on united nations matters must therefore be made with care and a sense of responsibility, especially since Canada is a country the views of which are taken seriously and which has the reputation of conscientiously carrying out the commitments into which it has entered.
Canada's position on the security council, as a middle power, would be an important one in any circumstances. The special nature of our relationship to the United Kingdom and the United States complicates our responsibilities, though it also enlarges our opportunities for influencing developments. Canada will be expected by some to follow the lead of the United Kingdom; by others to follow the lead of the United States. The fact that these two states are now in general agreement on fundamental questions eases but does not remove our particular difficulties. Unfriendly observers will write us off as a satellite of both, hoping in this way to minimize the effect of our independent action. More objective observers will tend to assume that it will be hard for Canada to follow a policy of its own. The fact that Canadian interests will often naturally be identical with those of the United Kingdom and the United States, without any suggestion or influence from these states, in a sense makes Canada's position

Supply-External Affairs
more ambiguous. It will not be easy to secure credit for independence and honesty of argument and decision. Nevertheless we will continue to make our decisions objectively, in the light of our obligations to our own people and their interest in the welfare of the international community.
I come now to the question of Palestine.
There is not time for me now to discuss this question at length, and hon. members may wish to examine the more detailed account of the discussions in the general assembly which will be included in our report to parliament on the united nations. I should like, however, to summarize a few of the principal considerations which have influenced Canadian policy on this subject since it came before the united nations.
The special assembly on Palestine, which met a year ago, was summoned, we should not forget, at the request of the United Kingdom to make recommendations for the future government of Palestine.
This special assembly established a committee which went to Palestine, investigated the position and reported to the regular assembly which met last September. In preparing its report the committee does not appear to have had any reason to assume that the United Kingdom intended to withdraw from Palestine in the immediate future.
Thus when the general assembly began in the autumn to consider the report of the special committee, the majority of whose members had recommended a plan of partition with economic union, it was found that an important feature of the plan was a suggestion that the mandatory power should continue to administer the territory during a two-year transitional period. The assembly also had before it, however, an announcement greatly altering the situation, but the reasons for which I am sure we all appreciate, that the United Kingdom government would terminate the mandate and withdraw from Palestine at the earliest possible date.
The general assembly, after a long discussion of the problem, recommended by more than a two-thirds majority that a plan based on the proposal of the special committee for partition with economic union should be adopted. It put the responsibility for implementing that recommendation on the security council if the two parties, the Arabs and the Jews, were unable to agree on it. Implementation from outside seems very much like leading a horse to water. You cannot have economic union without agreement between the two parties.
It is important that the Canadian attitude towards this issue should be made clear. This
plan for partition with economic union was not initiated by the Canadian government. It was proposed by a united nations special committee on Palestine. When the report of that committee came up for discussion at Lake Success last autumn, it soon became clear that a plan based on partition with economic union was, regardless of its merits, the only one that could possibly secure the necessary majority at the general assembly. At various times the Canadian delegation intervened in the discussions for the purpose of endeavouring to make the plan as practicable and as realistic as possible. Above all, we tried to ensure that there would be some provision for implementation included in the assembly recommendation.
It was, and still is, the Canadian attitude that the united nations should not make recommendations in regard to Palestine without taking into account the problem of whether their acceptance could be secured. In the past the world as a whole has been spared the necessity of concerning itself with the problem of Palestine because of the willingness of the United Kingdom to administer that country. The inability of the mandatory power to continue to carry this burden presented, and still presents, the question of whether the responsibility which the United Kingdom is laying down will be picked up by the united nations; or, if not, by whom?
By the united nations in the form of a trusteeship? That was considered by the special committee and by assembly delegations last autumn and rejected. By the people of Palestine through the establishment of a unitary state with an Arab majority? That would not, so most delegations felt, fulfil the promises made, and so often confirmed, to the Jews that they should have a national home in Palestine. Or by the formation of Jewish and Arab states, with the majority of the inhabitants Jewish and Arab respectively, but joined together by economic union and free communication?
The Canadian delegation supported this last solution, as the least unsatisfactory of the alternatives which had at one time or another been considered; as the least unjust and least impracticable solution to a problem where, hon. members must realize, justice and practicality are so difficult to reconcile or even to discover.
As all of you are aware, the United States has modified the position it took in relation to the Palestine question last November. For reasons which have been given wide publicity and which were discussed by Canada in the security council on March 24, it is evident that immediate implementation of the partition plan is not practicable. You cannot have two
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
states set up and get them to act as an economic union. Necessary adjustments have now to be considered. On March 19 the United States drew the attention of the security council to the fact that if the assembly plan were not put into effect by May 15 the united nations would have no administrative responsibility in Palestine after the mandate ended. In order that this responsibility might now be definitely assumed, the United States proposed formally on March 30 that a second special session of the general assembly should be summoned. It indicated that it would suggest to the assembly the creation of a temporary united nations trusteeship, without prejudice- I emphasize those words "without prejudice'' -to the final political settlement in Palestine. This would, it was hoped, serve as a suitable medium through which the united nations might fulfil its responsibility. The United Kingdom supported the proposal for summoning a special session of the assembly, as well as the United States motion calling for an immediate truce in Palestine. The Canadian government also gave its support to both proposals. In voting for the calling of a special session we had in mind the desirability of enabling the assembly to consider whether in this new and changed circumstance, alternative plans should be made for Palestine, particularly if there is hope that by these means processes of mediation and conciliation may be initiated and peace restored.
This special session is now meeting at Lake Success. A specific proposal has been made to it that responsibility for the administration of Palestine now be placed under a united nations trusteeship. An arrangement of this nature, however, unless it were accepted by both parties, might create even greater difficulties of enforcement than partition with economic union. Before such a plan could be put into effect, therefore, it would seem necessary to have the concurrence of a decisive majority of the members of the united nations and particularly those members who would be expected to play a leading part in the implementation of the plan. For this reason, the Canadian government, before it expresses a judgment on these proposals, will await some clear indication that the plans which have been placed before the assembly will produce a constructive result which can and will be put into effect. In the meantime, the Canadian delegation to the special assembly and to the security council will use its best efforts to support the truce agreement which was carried in the security council during the session of April 16 and by which methods

were recommended to the two parties for avoiding further widespread violence in Palestine.
Apart from the references which I have made to our relations with our fellow members of the British commonwealth and with the United States, the picture which I have presented to the house has been gloomy. The cause of freedom, of democracy and of peace has had setbacks-in Europe, in the far east, in the united nations. But these setbacks have resulted in a strong democratic reaction.
In Italy, for instance, the communists have been waging a ruthless, determined and skilful fight for power. They have, however, been rejected by the Italian electorate in the kind of free election which they would never have permitted if they had been in power. The free people of Italy have declared that they want to remain free, to remain a part of western civilization and not to become a province of a new totalitarian slave empire. Their decision has been welcomed by free men in every country.
The Italian elections have once again proved the truth of the thesis that no nation by an honest vote has ever put the communists in power. It is well to remember, however, that once in power, the people will not be allowed to vote them out. The communists have only to win one election, because it will be the last of elections as we know them.
Difficult days lie ahead for Italy. The communists, having failed to get power by constitutional means, may resort to the threat and use of force. But we are confident that Italy will prove as successful in dealing with these threats as it has been in dealing with the communist attempt to gain power by using the democratic process of an election.
I would also like to mention three other important, indeed historic steps which have been taken recently, in the organization of democratic action. The first was the passage by the United States Congress of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, authorizing an appropriation of $5,300 million for the first twelve months of a European recovery program designed to last some four years. The second was the adoption on April 16 by the sixteen free nations of Europe and by representatives of the three western zones of Germany of the convention for European economic co-operation. The third was the signing of the Brussels pact. As to the first, on behalf of the government of Canada, I hope I can say even the people of Canada would like to pay tribute to this generous and imaginative act of high statesmanship by the government of the

Supply-External Affairs
United States. By the enactment of the Foreign Assistance Act, the most powerful democratic state of our day has given new confidence and vigour to all the free peoples of the world.
In their turn, the western European nations have given proof of their ability to respond to the challenge of the Foreign Assistance Act by the adoption of the convention establishing an organization for European economic cooperation. They have established an organization for self-help and mutual aid in economic matters. The purpose of the organization, as set forth in the preamble of the convention, is thespeedy establishment of sound economic conditions enabling the contracting parties as soon as possible to achieve and maintain a satisfactory level of economic activity without extraordinary outside assistance, and to make their full contribution to world economic stability.
The signature of the Paris convention took place less than a month after a third great historic event-the signature on March 17 in Brussels of the five power treaty of mutual assistance by the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the 'Netherlands and Luxembourg. The convention agreed to in Paris is a long step towards economic unity in western Europe. The treaty signed in Brussels is a long step towards closer political and cultural unity as well.
This "western union", proposed by Mr. Bevin in his great speech of January 22, the nucleus of which has now been created by the Brussels treaty, is no mere military alliance directed against a possible aggressor from the east. It goes further and deeper and seeks to mobilize the moral as well as the military and economic resources of western Europe. It seeks to restrain the aggressive forces of communism, not by a Maginot line but by building up in the liberal, democratic and Christian states of western Europe a dynamic counter-attraction to them.
The difficulties which the governments and peoples of western Europe will have to overcome in order to create a western European community are formidable. To fail to comprehend their magnitude would be to demonstrate a lack of understanding towards the peoples of that part of the world. To us in this continent of vast spaces, western Europe may seem small and compact, but it is composed of many great nations, each with a long and splendid separate national tradition; each proud of its distinctive character, its peculiar institutions, its national independence. These difficulties are inherent in the rich diversity of the great European tradition. But the move towards the creation
of a union of all the peoples of western Europe has been successfully started. We welcome that move and we are confident that the peoples of western Europe will continue to respond successfully to the challenge presented to them by the threat to everything they cherish in the remorseless advance of communist totalitarianism.
It is not only in the European recovery program, the Paris convention and the Brussels treaty that the democratic states have given proof of their ability to work together. They have also demonstrated this by the progress which they have made in bringing about administrative and other reforms in western Germany.
The internal state of affairs in Germany, even before the European recovery program was put forward, was a cause of concern to the three western occupying powers. These powers, already overburdened, were carrying a heavy additional load as a result of their resolve that Germany should not become a vast slum area and a menace to the physical and political health of the world.
From time to time all four occupying powers in Germany have been obliged to take measures for the efficient administration of their respective zones. Until the failure of the meeting of the council of foreign ministers in December last, these measures were largely of a transitory nature and, in general, have been based on the assumption that a German peace treaty would shortly be concluded. But the failure of the last foreign ministers meeting and the non-cooperative policy adopted by the U.S.S.R. in German matters, demonstrated that this assumption was no longer a reasonable one to make. Moreover, conditions in the countries occupying Germany, in the countries bordering on Germany, and in Germany itself did not permit indefinite delay.
Early in February, therefore, the United Kingdom and the United States promulgated a new constitution for their united zones, which placed upon the Germans a necessary degree of responsibility for their own public business. This responsibility should contribute to the re-education of the Germans in democratic and peaceful processes of government. Care, however, must be taken to see that it does not contribute to the re-emergence of Germany as a potential aggressor.
Following the promulgation of this constitution, talks were held in London from February 23 to March 6, in order to secure as great a measure of co-operation as possible in Germany between the United Kingdom, the United States and France. These talks have been resumed in the last few days.
3448
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Three of Germany's neighbours-Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg - have a specially direct and urgent interest in a number of the problems under discussion. Western Germany has long been their normal source of supply for many essential goods, especially coal and iron, and their economic welfare depends to a very great extent on that of the western zones of occupation. It can therefore be understood that a discussion of administrative and practical arrangements for inter-zonal co-operation, especially in economic matters, should take into consideration this special position of the Benelux states. They were accordingly invited to take part in some of the discussions at London.
It was the Canadian government's attitude that the special association of the Benelux countries with the occupying powers in the London talks was a reasonable and necessary stage in the effort to bring about closer economic co-operation between the countries of western Europe. We regarded the participation of the Benelux countries in these talks as a step toward the realization of the European recovery program which we had already welcomed. We continue to insist that we have the right to effective participation in any general German peace settlement, when it comes to be made.
It is hoped that these London talks will end much of the enervating uncertainty which has beset Germany since her defeat; and that western Europe generally will profit from the stability which three-power decisions can and must give in the absence of four-power or multilateral agreement. To the extent that this end is achieved, communist propaganda and conditions which produce communist action committees will be counteracted in western Europe.
Before concluding, I should like to say something about Canada's relations to these questions, first, to the European recovery program and, secondly, to the developments towards western European economic and political unity, which I have just mentioned.
As to the first: in the United States program for European recovery, provision is made for purchases outside the United States. A sizeable proportion of the funds which the Congress has authorized for the program has been set aside for this purpose. It is not expected, however, that either the volume or direction of Canadian trade will be significantly altered by this development from that of recent years. The "off-shore" purchases provision of the Foreign Assistance Act can, however, enable us to continue to send to western Europe commodities which otherwise,

because of our own dollar difficulties, we would have had to direct to countries which could provide us with dollars or goods in return.
In view of the expected extent of United States dollar purchases in Canada under ERP, it has been suggested that we might now be expected to contribute further substantial direct financial assistance to western Europe. However, our United States dollar reserves are still lower than they should be. Nor can these reserves be increased to a satisfactory level simply by selling wholly for United States dollars those commodities which have in the past been paid for only partly in United States dollars. We must not forget or allow others to forget that since the end of the war we have extended to the European nations, in the form of loans, credits and grants, an amount which, relative to the size of our population, and our national income, is second to none. We must, however, have a surplus in our international balance of payments before we can consider the extension of any further financial aid to western Europe.
In order to secure such a surplus we must, among other things, expand our exports, continue to do without many of our traditional imports from dollar countries, and secure more of our imports from countries in the sterling area.
What of the second question, Canada's relations to the developments towards western European economic unity and western union? The development and rehabilitation of a sound system of international trade, a matter of first importance for Canada, is inseparably linked with European recovery. It must not be forgotten that the United Kingdom and the western European countries have in the past provided valuable markets for Canadian exports. Should the economies of these countries collapse, our own economy would suffer a severe blow. In addition, such a collapse would provide a favourable environment for communism, which feeds on insecurity, unrest and political instability. For these reasons we welcome any development towards European economic unity, which will in the long run be of great advantage to Canada by increasing political security and by widening the area of freer trade.
In so far as widening the area of political security is concerned, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has already outlined in this house on March 17 the government's attitude to the Brussels five-power treaty. I think I might repeat here what he then said, to place

Supply-External Affairs
it in the context of the world picture. Speaking of the Brussels five-power treaty the Prime Minister said:
This pact is far more than an alliance of the old kind. It is a partial realization of the idea of collective security by an- arrangement made under the charter of the united nations. As such it is a step towards peace, which may well be followed by other similar steps until there is built up an association of all free states which are willing to accept responsibilities of mutual assistance to prevent aggression and preserve peace . . .
The Canadian government has been closely following recent developments in the international sphere. The peoples of all free countries may be assured that Canada will play her full part in every movement to- give substance to the conception of an- effective system of collective security by the development of regional pacts under the charter of the united nations.
The time has not yet come when it would be wise or useful for the government to go much beyond that considered and, I think, important statement of government policy.
I referred to one possible line of development when I spoke seven months ago at the general assembly. I stated then that it was not necessary to contemplate the break-up of the united nations or the secession from it of the Soviet group in order to build up a stronger security system within the organization. Without sacrificing the universality of the united nations, it is possible for the free nations of the world to form their own closer association for collective self-defence under article 51 of the charter of the united nations. Such an association could be created within the united nations by those free states which are willing to accept more specific and onerous obligations than those contained in the charter in return for greater national security than the united nations can now give its members.
It may be that the free states, or some of them, will soon find it necessary to consult together on how best to establish such a collective security league. It might grow out of the plans for "western union" now -maturing in Europe. Its purpose, like that of "western union," would not be merely negative; it would create a dynamic counter-attraction to communism-the dynamic counter-attraction of a free, prosperous and progressive society as opposed to the totalitarian and reactionary society of the communist world. The formation of such a defensive group of free states would not be a counsel of despair but a message of hope. It would not mean that we regarded a third world war as inevitable; 'but that the free democracies had decided that to prevent such a war they would organize so as to confront the forces of communist expansionism with an overwhelming pre-5849-219J
ponderance of moral, economic and military force and with sufficient degree of unity to ensure that this preponderance of force is so used that the free nations cannot be defeated one by one. iNo measure less than this will do. We must at all costs avoid the fatal repetition of the history of the pre-war years when the nazi aggressor picked off its victims one by one. Such a process does not end at the Atlantic.
I am sure that it is the desire of the people of Canada that Canada should play its full part in creating and maintaining this overwhelming preponderance of moral, economic and military force and the necessary unity for its effective use.
One thing we must constantly keep in -mind as we approach this fateful decision is that the western European democracies are not beggars asking for our charity. They are allies whose assistance we need in order to be able successfully to defend ourselves and our beliefs. Canada and the United States need the assistance of the western European democracies just as they need ours. The spread of aggressive communist despotism over western Europe would ultimately almost certainly mean for us war, and war on most-unfavourable terms. It is in our national interest to see to it that the flood of communist expansion is held back.
Our foreign policy today must, therefore, I suggest, be based on a recognition of the fact that totalitarian communist aggression, endangers the freedom and peace of every democratic country, including Canada. On this basis and pending the strengthening of the united nations, we should be willing to associate ourselves with other free states in any appropriate collective security arrangements which may be worked out under articles 51 or 52 of the charter.
In the circumstances of the present the organization of collective defence in this way is the most effective guarantee of peace. The pursuit of this course, steadfastly, unprovocatively, and constructively is our best hope for disproving the gloomy -predictions of inevitable war.	-
The burden of maintaining peace, however, will not be easy. We must constantly remember that the union of the free world which is now "painfully struggling to be bom" will possess overwhelming strength only if it is -based on moral as well as material force; if its citizens are bound together not merely by a hatred of communism but by their love
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
of free democracy and their determination to make it work for the promotion of welfare and the preservation of peace.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead).; Mr. Speaker, the house has listened with complete attention to the statement which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) has just made. Many changes have taken place since that day in July, 1911, when Mr. Asquith, the then prime minister of Great Britain said, in answer to the suggestion that the overseas dominions assist in the formulation of the empire's foreign policy, that in matters of such grave import the mother country could not consider sharing her responsibility. Changes have taken place in Great Britain itself. Great Britain was then a world leader in industry, in finance, in trade and in diplomacy. She possessed a navy which was admitted to be double in strength that of everything that could be brought against it from the recesses of seven seas and those were the days when such a navy meant complete protection not merely to Britain but to all who lived under the British flag.
Those days have gone. Science has given to man access to the realms of the air and of the the ether. The submarine, which was only mooted in those days, is now an effective and destructive agency of warfare. Having resisted and resisted successfully the onslaught of tyranny on two separate occasions, Britain is not today the power that she was in 1911.
Changes have taken place in Canada. At that time Canada was a dominion achieving advancement in the economic and industrial worlds but quite unaware of her great potentialities. The great world itself has become a different place. From the close of the religious wars until the beginning of the first great war, that is from the founding of Quebec in 1608 until 1914, the modern state system had been kept together and in order by an instrumentality known as the balance of power. It operated under certain accepted rules and restrictions which brought to the rescue of any nation that was being set upon by a larger one the majority of the other nations. Britain as a maritime power used this instrument with such skill and political wisdom that the world enjoyed for a century-from the battle of Waterloo until that of the Marne-peace, the Pax Britannica.
It is true there were interruptions in this peace, but they were transitory and did not disrupt orderly life in the continent of Europe.

This balance of power, which was relied upon to maintain peace in Europe and in the world, has also pretty well disappeared from horizons of the mid twentieth century.
At the close of the Napoleonic wars there were eight nations that were called great powers. These were Austria, France, Great Britain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia, Spain and Sweden. Portugal, Spain and Sweden were so called by courtesy rather than because of any great power in themselves.
In the middle of this period, about 1860, the United States and Italy became first-class powers. A little later on, about the turn of the century, Japan became a great power. So at the time of the first great war there were eight great powers. As a result of that war, Austria disappeared as a great power. Germany disappeared temporarily, as did Russia. These latter two countries, however, revived; and at the beginning of the world war in 1939 there were seven great world powers: France, Germany, the Soviet republics, the United States, Great Britain, Japan and Italy. As the outcome of the war, Germany, Italy and Japan disappeared, and there remained in reality as great powers but Russia and the United States, with Britain and those nations which have been closely allied to her in a reduced situation. The world found itself in a strange situation. It found itself in an era in which there were two great contenders, two powerful giants who alone seemed almost able to control the world. The makings of a balance of power seemed to have vanished.
Some days ago I was reading the speech that was made at Bar-le-Duc by General de Gaulle on the 28th of July, 1946. In it I found the amazing prophecy made over a hundred years ago by the historian de Tocque-ville. I consider it of sufficient interest to impart a translation of it to the house:
There are at this time-
Said de Tocqueville over 100 years ago.
-two great nations in existence which proceeding from different points, appear to be advancing towards the same end. I mean the United States of America and Russia. All the other nations seem to have reached very nearly the bounds which nature marked out for them and have nothing further to do but to keep what they possess. These two only are still in progress. They alone are marching forward rapidly with giant steps in a career to which the eye can as yet discern no limit. The American depends chiefly on self-interest to effect his objects, and leaves the individual to act almost without direction. The Russian concentrates in one man the whole power of society. The main principle of the former is liberty; of the latter, despotism. Their respective points of departure are different; they move in opposite

Supply-External Affairs
directions; but each seems to be called, in the secret designs of Providence, to hold in its hands at some future day the destinies of one half the world.
While this prophecy is remarkable in many ways, fortunately it is not quite accurate, because outside the realm of these two giants there remains still a powerful element which can play an important part in maintaining the peace of the world. When the minister was setting forth the Canadian position, he made reference to the relationship between Canada and other countries which it is believed will tend to delay, if not to prevent, a conflict between these two giants.
As the minister has pointed out, the position of'Canada, as a middle power, is a difficult one from many angles. By reason of our origin, our economy and, I was going to say, our internal diplomacy, we have a certain facility for meeting and dealing with other people which makes us useful agents in all international gatherings. Our services are sometimes sought; our vanity is flattered. In fact we are but a minor, if not altogether a humble, member of the united nations. That fact is pointed out clearly in the minister's departmental report for the year 1947. When the time came to make peace, to prescribe the conditions upon which peace should be made with Germany and with Austria, Canada was not consulted. We received a note informing us that we might communicate, not with the council of foreign ministers but with the special deputies of the council of foreign ministers. We protested, and there the matter ended.
It is probably well that from time to time we should learn of our own relative insignificance, that we may not be unduly exalted when taking part in international discussions and conferences. Canada seeks peace. That is the chief object of Canada's association with other nations. Within the last few years we have come into a position of responsibility. We are neophytes in the practice of this art or profession of international politics; and it behooves us to be extremely careful lest we be imposed upon, and that, while tendering our good offices, we are not made the agents of those who are willing to avail themselves of our youth and vigour to aid them in their own political difficulties.
I am not going to refer in detail to many of the countries or all the problems to which the minister has made reference. I am fully aware of the difficulties incidental to the solution of many of the problems that come before the united nations. At the end of the war, when it was decided that another effort should be made to establish a body which could govern the world and keep predatory nations in hand,
Canada entered willingly and ardently upon the undertaking to form a body whose duty it would be to maintain peace, do away with servitude, protect human rights, and give to the world at large many of the blessings enjoyed in her homeland.
The united nations was set up amid high hopes. It was my privilege to assist at a meeting of the general assembly last autumn. I admit that probably I did not see this great organism, in the most favourable circumstances. I saw it while it was dealing with the Palestinian question, a question which has baffled and tortured the ingenuity of many peoples for some scores of years and which does not yet appear to have yielded to treatment.
It is not my intention to criticize any of those who took part in the proceedings which led to the decision that the partition of Palestine should take place. I do think, however, Canada should profit by that experience. Other countries, too, can profit by the same lessons. It was said, and there was something to justify the allegations, that domestic political necessities bore very heavily upon this decision. Whether or not that be true, Canada displayed there an enthusiasm which was perhaps more indicative of youth and good will than of mature experience. We took it for granted that partition would be enforced, without inquiring carefully by what agency or in what way.
In recommending partition the general assembly also voted to appoint a five-man united nations commission, consisting of representatives of Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama and the Philippines, to proceed to Palestine under the aegis of the security council and take over from the British government when it terminated its mandate. To one not altogether familiar with the ways of internationalists, it seemed that the selection of the countries I have mentioned for this important and difficult task indicated that the matter had not been considered in all its aspects. I feel that the Jewish people of Canada, who were very much interested in the solution which was promised by partition, have ground, not to criticize their own government, to regret that this matter was dealt with in a way which did not take into consideration all that enforcement of this policy of partition meant.
There is this to be recalled, that throughout the meetings at Flushing and Lake Success in the autumn of 1947 there was but one issue in which the Soviets took any common interest with the other nations. That was the partition of Palestine. The Soviets were very ardent in their advocacy of this policy, which has now failed. I think that is not too definite a term
Supply

External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
to use because, whatever may happen, in the result the united nations has suffered a set-back from the manner in which this question has been dealt with. That set-back should be turned to account; and Canada with other nations should recall at all times that in matters of international relations the responsibility for one's actions is very great indeed.
I point this out because thirteen years ago Canada suddenly abandoned a position in international affairs which had been taken perhaps without sufficient consideration. I refer to the sanctions imposed upon Italy in 1935.
It is to be hoped that in dealing with these matters in the future Canada will not give her support until she has satisfactory assurance that the policy determined upon is one which can and will be executed.
The other question which is of supreme interest to the world at large, and to Canada in particular, is the peril that confronts liberty loving people as a result of the attitude of Soviet Russia. Canada wants peace. It wants peace-not at any price-it wants peace if it is possible to have it without the sacrifice of those things which we hold so important, so essential that, for their preservation, she would go to war.
Here 1 suggest it is most important that Canada give attention to local conditions. We need to maintain peace to give the world the impression that we are strong and ready to protect ourselves. This means in the first place that we should have armaments, and in the second place that we should have allies. It means, above all, and most important, that we should be at one, that we should be unanimous in our attitude toward peace and war.
Beginning first with the last requisite I have mentioned, it is just there that I feel Canada is not at her best. We know there are a great many honest, good and sincere people in Canada who do not believe that this country is in any peril. There are vast elements of our population who, through the last war, and also through the first one, felt that Canada had no direct interest in those wars, and that they were imperialistic wars. There are people in Canada who believe, and believe honestly, that there is in this land a vast, probably a predominating, element which is imperialistic. They believe that if these so-called' imperialists had to choose between an interest that was purely British and one purely Canadian, they would select the British interest to the exclusion and to the detriment of the Canadian.
I know many people who hold these opinions. I respect their views; I believe they are in error. I wish to maintain the uncontroversial tone of this debate, but I think it is

here that government, that statesmanship and that patriotism can render their greatest service to Canada.
If Canada is not in peril, if the attitude of the government is dictated by interests which are other than Canadian, then there is no reason to fear; there is no reason to prepare. But if in fact there is a peril, that should be made clear to everybody. These good people, these honest people, these people who love Canada just as ardently as anyone else, but who disbelieve that there is danger, should be afforded the opportunity of joining in resistance to a real menace. The government should help them to a realization of the facts.
In other days many Canadians have been interested in foreign matters only because of their reactions upon domestic politics. I hope we have passed out of that era. If we have passed on to another plane and are accepting and acknowledging our international responsibilities as a member of the assembly of the united nations and as a member of the security council, it behooves us to make clear to our people exactly what our situation is. If we can do away with controversy as to the facts; if we can come into agreement as to whether or not there is a peril and as to whether or not that peril is Canada's, then I am confident that we shall have united support for Canada's foreign policy and a most effective agency for the maintenance of peace.
It is an invitation to hostilities for a nation to be divided in its foreign policy. It was said in this chamber on the eve of the last war, when the very clouds were dripping with disaster, that it was unthinkable that Canada should go to Europe to fight for democracy there. That was dangerous talk. If the government can take the people of Canada into its confidence; if it can point out to them that there is a great and real peril I believe that it will have done much, not only for the unity of Canada but for the maintenance of world peace.
These questions are always difficult of discussion, because one wishes to keep away from controversial matters. At the same time there is imposed upon one the obligation of stating how a unified and strong and sincere national sentiment may be evolved. Communism has opened up differences and divergencies between men more far-reaching and rending than any the human race has ever known.
As was stated in the quotation which I read, the philosophy which seeks to dominate humankind by taking from it the exercise of its freedom of will and action, which are the outstanding characteristics of humanity, is a threat which is more terrible in its consequences than any that the civilized peoples of the west

Supply-External Affairs
have had to face for a long time. However, we can derive some cheer from one aspect of the situation. Communism is a purely materialistic doctrine. It is one which restricts its activities to the physical. As the minister said, you need to have only one successful communist election, because once the communist is in power he uses that power to maintain himself there and to destroy all of everything that savours of liberty.
I say we can derive some consolation from the fact that communism, terrible as it is, ruthless as it is, is an entirely materialistic philosophy and in consequence it cannot tap those bottomless wells of supernatural vigour and spiritual dynamism which make for the triumph of just causes. But it is not enough merely to belabour the communist and to criticize his methods and his attitude toward society. We must in our land improve conditions and make the winning of a living here so equitable and so attractive that the communistic seed, even if it should sprout, will not reach great heights and will never yield an abundant crop.
This debate is somewhat of an innovation. In the past we have had statements by the minister of external affairs on questions which were more or less academic. But now for the first time I think we have heard from a minister who has had to assume responsibility for Canada's foreign policy in an anxious world; and while the responsibility is great and the change has been very rapid from the time when we first had any voice in foreign affairs, I like to think that from this new responsibility and that from the very dangers, the very perils, the very burdens which are inherent to adolescence, if not to maturity in this new sphere, we shall achieve in our land a more complete understanding between the different sections and elements that go to make it up.
Our position is a difficult one. We have an extremely powerful and an extremely bountiful and an extremely friendly neighbour. But it is well to recall that certain restraints must be observed to maintain friendship in a neighbourhood. A little bit of forgetfulness, a little bit of licence, taking too much for granted, sometimes upset what was destined to be and what has been a delightful relationship. I hope that we shall be able to continue our relationship with our good neighbour to the south, and there is no reason to anticipate that we shall not, so long as we are respectful of him and respectful of ourselves and do not rely on that neighbour out of his bounty to do too much for us.
I regret-this may be a little outside the debate, Mr. Speaker-that we have found it necessary to borrow money from the government of the United States. Borrowing puts a strain on friendship. The neighbour might not want back what is owing to him; but until he gets it back we shall owe it to him, and we shall owe him a little bit of that deference, a little bit of that servitude which one good neighbour is happier if he does not owe to another.
There is one other aspect of our foreign relations on which I should like to dwell for a moment. I heard the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) make a very interesting speech the other night. He said that it would be well if appeals to the privy council could be terminated, our relations with England through the privy council brought to an end. I do not wish to insinuate that he said anything which was not proper. He expressed a very respectable opinion in most respectful language, but it raised a point that I want to discuss-our relationship with Europe. We are the umbilical cord; we are the only direct line of communication that exists between the new world and the old, with its wealth of experience and learning, tradition and all that goes to make up that civilization which was the heritage of our forebears whether they came from the British isles, from France or from any other country of the western world. We are the sole direct channel of relationship between the old world and the new. It is out of that east and west relationship which took its origin in the zeal of the missionaries, the restlessness of the pathfinders; it is from those who were seeking the road to Cathay, -who were seeking their way to the abundance of the orient, seeking their way to the Pacific and the treasures beyond-it is out of that relationship that Canada came into existence, and it is because of its maintenance that Canada is something different from that which is around us today. If Canada is Canada and distinct from other countries of the continent; if our institutions are a little more secure; if our respect for the past is a little more pronounced, it is because of that continued relationship with the old world. It is because we are in more direct touch with that which has been the source and pride of western civilization, and which is in peril today, that we as children of that great heritage have been trying in our small way to assist in the rehabilitation of Europe.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. HACKETT:: Mr. Speaker, I have
searched in vain in the report of the Department of External Affairs for any reference to the bill which was passed last session entitled, I believe, the Visiting Forces Act. I looked upon that as an act of major importance because it conceded to a friend and neighbour very substantial and unusual rights, among them the right of setting up in Canada his own courts of justice that members of visiting forces might be tried and punished here according to the laws of the United States.
Whatever may be thought of the legislation, I think it is of sufficient importance to have been mentioned in the report of the minister. I hope that in the next report we shall find that it has been repealed by mutual consent.
There is only one more matter to which I wish to refer, and while it is in a minor key compared with some of the matters that have been discussed this afternoon, it is of considerable importance. I refer to the customs and immigration posts at the frontier.
Our customs offices and immigration offices on the border remind one very much of what one saw in the old world on the eve of the war. There are in the immediate offing of these establishments high-powered motorcars; there are young arsenals, and there are officers whose military bearing and general demeanour spell force and militarism in some of its objectionable aspects.
The customs laws and the immigration laws
must be respected; they provide for the punishment of those who break them. It is unfortunate that a borderland of such length, one concerning which we have been proud to. declare, for a hundred years, that it has been undefended by fortifications or arms, should be marred by. these miniature and pigmy fortresses.
The minister I know will not consider it beneath his dignity to give some attention to these matters, because he too comes from the borderland and knows of the friendly feeling that has always existed between the peoples of the two countries. Recently social intercourse and relations generally between the friendly people on both sides of this international boundary have been profoundly interfered with by the difficulties of border crossing.
I think we owe it to ourselves and to the neighbourly spirit in which we have lived for these hundred years to do something toward reducing these monuments to barbarism which we erect without necessity along our inter-

national frontiers. We are probably no more to blame than our neighbours, but I like to think that if the minister would turn his attention seriously to this matter, in collaboration with the secretary for foreign affairs in the United States, he could do much to make less difficult the practice of friendship by the people who live along these frontiers.
It is well to remember, Mr. Speaker, that most of our people live along the frontier. It is said that 95 per cent of Canada's population is within 200 miles of the frontiers of the United States and that 90 per cent of it is within 100 miles of that country. Nearly our entire population live in areas adjacent to or almost immediately adjacent to the international boundary. Therefore much would be done to add to their comfort, to say nothing of the edifying example to be given to the foreign visitor, if these unnecessary impediments to circulation, amity and understanding were made less awesome and- the difficulties to international relations reduced.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to two speeches which I think should set a very high standard for this debate. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) this afternoon dealt with the more immediate problems facing the country and the world, and the government's policy in relation to those problems. Before the dinner recess and tonight the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) gave us one of those rare treats when he placed before us the historic background of many of the problems which we face today. With the introduction contained in those two speeches I think we have had the beginning of a debate which should reach a high standard indeed. I wish to congratulate both hon. gentlemen.
During the war the C.C.F., the movement which we represent, continually urged upon the nation that we should prepare for the winning of the peace as well as for the winning of the war. We said at the time that war aims and peace aims were one and indivisible, and that it was not sufficient merely to say that we intended to destroy the nazi and fascist regimes.
When, three years ago almost to the day, we met in San Francisco in the closing days of the war, we hoped that the nations gathered there would find the basis of friendship and understanding. We established the united nations which, in spite of all its deficiencies, remains the only instrument for co-operation among the nations of the world. In spite of all its defects, it has served already as the forum for public discussion of many of the grave problems that face us in the realm of international affairs. In the forum of the general

Supply-External Affairs
assembly there have been discussed and examined critical issues which might have been hidden away and led to graver difficulties had the full glare of publicity not been shed upon them. Its social and economic agencies are performing essential services in the cause of human welfare and, therefore, of world peace. We regret, of course, that so far several important aspects of the charter have not been put into effect. I think this is particularly disappointing, when it is remembered that the principal powers have failed to call together their military staffs and to organize the international force for the prevention of aggression that we expected would be established.
The C.C.F. gave support to the united nations charter. We believe that the first principle of Canada's foreign policy should be continued participation in and active support of the united nations organization, its principal organs and specialized agencies. I think it is true to say that Canada has already played an important part, not only in establishing those agencies but in giving support to them and endeavouring to fulfil the obligations inherent in the decisions that have been made. As I say, we believe that our external policies should be based firmly on the principles of the united nations charter even-and I am glad the minister this afternoon emphasized the point I am about to make-if on occasion the proposals of Canada run counter to those of any other nation, great or small.
Those of us who have attended the meetings of the assembly realize that the statements of our government, on behalf of Canada, urging the simplification of the procedure to be followed in the assembly and in the associated bodies, meet with the support of the majority, not only of the people in our own country but, I believe, of people everywhere all across the world. We believe that we must do everything in our power to strengthen the united nations organization, to assist in the development of the economic and social council and its specialized agencies, and to endeavour to develop all these, not only because they are useful in themselves but as first steps in the expansion of the united nations organization into an effective organ of government at the international level.
We realize that a suggestion of this sort necessarily involves something else. It involves the relinquishment of certain privileges associated with what I believe to be an out-moded national sovereignty. Although it means the relinquishment of an out-moded sovereignty, in reality it is not a restriction of effective sovereignty. In reality it is an extension of national sovereignty, because it 5849-220
enables us to take part in decisions affecting not only our own welfare but the peace and welfare of the whole world. In other words, it expands the influence we have from the realm of our own domestic situation into the realm of the affairs of the great world at large. Although some of us assembled in this chamber today may never live to see the united nations organization become the instrument of government at the international level, I believe that the day will come- indeed, it must come-when that goal will be reached by humanity. I believe it is because we have failed to grasp this very fact that the nations at large, and the masses of people in those nations, are today in revolt, if I may use that term, against exploitation and oppression.
The democratic nations sometimes have compromised themselves and placed themselves at a disadvantage in the struggle for democracy and the ending of oppression throughout the world. In other words, because of the international situation the democratic nations at times have appeared to be on the side of reactionary interests across the world, such as feudal rulers in the near and middle east and so on. This at times has placed the democratic nations in an unfortunate light before the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, during the conflict, because of the necessities of war the great powers- and therefore the nations associated with them in the war-committed themselves to various kinds of old-fashioned agreements, dividing the world into spheres of influence and sharing the spoils of victory, in order to maintain the grand alliance that ensured victory. We used to hear eulogies of Teheran, Yalta and the Potsdam agreements. But we must remember that, at thosei conferences-as we now well know-the great powers set aside important pledges which were made during the war and which in some respects were embodied in the Atlantic charter. By some parts of these agreements the Atlantic charter was nullified and set aside.
Since the war ended, territories have been annexed, innocent people have been displaced, political dissidents have been sent to forced labour in mines and forests, and governments have been established or supported which would not conform to the desires of the people of those countries if they had an opportunity to express themselves freely in regard to them. We condoned-and I am not speaking of our own nation alone-the annexation of the Baltic republics and East Prussia by Russia and Poland; and we raised no objection when the
Supply-External Affairs

United States retained control of Pacific islands which it proposed to use as military and naval bases.
The two great powers about which we have heard so much today, the two giants as my hon. friend called them, Russia and the United States, which emerged from the war as the dominant nations of our time, each in its own way has proceeded to preach and, wherever possible, practise its own economic and social way of life throughout the world. But I do not think we should ever forget that the devastated and war-worn people of western Europe have realized that capitalism as we have known it in North America cannot be revived; for the destruction wrought by both war and the nazi regime scuttled capitalist ownership in Europe, and indeed scuttled it also in parts of Asia.
I now want to say that we welcome and support the European recovery program, because we believe it will give the nations of western Europe an opportunity to rebuild their economies in accordance with their needs. I am glad that this afternoon both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Stanstead, speaking on behalf of the government and the official opposition, placed their parties squarely . behind this very important project. We believe the European recovery program will give the western democracies an opportunity to rebuild their war-torn economies. I think we have to remember that no rehabilitation of the war-torn continent of Europe could be undertaken without the generous economic help of the United States. We regret profoundly that the Soviet union and the countries associated with it rejected the opportunity of uniting with the rest of Europe in this recovery program. Because of that refusal, the division between the east and the west has been deepened, and another chance for the immediate establishment of a firm economic foundation for European peace and indeed world peace has been lost.
Sixteen co-operating nations are developing a joint program of international planning for the co-operative allocation and use of their resources; and, as I have said, we of the C.C.F. warmly welcome the proposals. Indeed we join with the democratic socialist parties of other countries in their determination that the administration of the program, as far as we are able to exercise any influence at all, if it is to be successful must not interfere with the democratic right of the European peoples to control and determine their own social and economic destinies.
We believe that Canada, for her part, should support and assist the program, and respect

the right, which we ourselves must guard carefully in our own country, of all nations to determine their own purely domestic policies. The reconstruction of western Europe holds out hope that the nations joining together in this project will provide a positive alternative to the economic tyranny of private monopoly on the one hand and political tyranny of totalitarian dictatorship on the other.
This afternoon the hon. member for Stanstead spoke of the ancient policy of the balance of power. That policy has gone; but	perchance	the	democratic	nations	ofwestern Europe may, in the words of Leon Blum, become the third force in the world, which indeed may hold a new kind of balance, so that an aggressor, from wherever he comes, will know that against him would be thrown the	weight of	the	democratic	nations	of
western Europe.
We believe, then, that the rehabilitation and unification of the western European democracies may become one of the guarantees of world peace. We also believe that if the reconstruction of western Europe is to be carried out in a manner that will be beneficial to all concerned, the development of western Europe as an economic unit must be based on the principles of democratic social ownership, principally for the reasons I gave a few moments ago when I said the war and the nazi regime had destroyed the very basis of large-scale private ownership on the continent of Europe.
I should like to add that, even though some governments or political parties in Europe have not accepted these principles for European reconstruction, that should be no excuse for refusing to co-operate with them or indeed to give every possible assistance in their attempt at democratic reconstruction. After all, the very basis of democracy is intelligent compromise; and one of the reasons that among the democratic nations we have found it so difficult to come to understandings with the representatives of the Soviet union is that, as Mr. Gromyko said in an address at Lake Success not so long ago, in the Soviet dictionary there is no word for compromise. In a democracy there must be intelligent discussion leading to intelligent compromise. That is the way in which we make progress in these democratic countries.
We believe that, if carried out, the union of European peoples will provide the world with a strong democratic political force making for peace, thus reducing the dangers of a Soviet-United States conflict. At this stage may I add that I agree with those-and they

Supply-External Affairs
are many, among the leaders of all the nations of the world-who say that, while conditions across the world are disturbing, there is no reason to believe that war should be either imminent or inevitable.
We do not, of course, regard the union of western democracies as a mere military alliance, but rather as a means for close economic co-operation among the member nations. This, may I add, does not rule out the necessity, in the kind of world in which we live, of nations placing themselves in such a position that they may withstand any attack that may be made upon them. Because of this; because we believe that close economic co-operation among the member nations is fundamental to the welfare of those nations and the world, we believe that Canada and our sister dominions of the British commonwealth should plan their trade and resources as far as possible to strengthen this union of democracies. That, I take it, is precisely what the Secretary of State for External Affairs had in mind in the last part of his address this afternoon.
I said this should not be regarded as a mere military alliance. Unfortunately, of course, there is a great deal of war hysteria among the nations of the world today. Considerations of military strategy and power are responsible for this; and I fear that we in the western democracies, as I said a bit earlier, from time to time have given support to reactionary movements, for example in Greece and elsewhere, and have taken no effective steps against the fascist dictatorship in Spain. Canada has given help to Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese civil war without any guarantee- and this is the point I want to make-that he intends to introduce essential agrarian and others reforms, or to root out the widespread corruption and inefficiency in the administration that Secretary of State Marshall drew to the attention of the United States and the world when he returned to Washington from China some months ago. The help to which I refer differs fundamentally from aid for European rehabilitation. We believe that Canada should endeavour to urge and follow a more democratic and constructive policy with respect to the matters I have criticized.
Obviously, military and power considerations explain the policies of the Soviet union, which have brought one eastern European country after another under its domination. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out this afternoon, recent events in Czechoslovakia show clearly that political freedom and liberty are completely extinguished in any country which comes under communist 5849-220J
domination. In all these countries, the free democratic socialist parties have disappeared. Those who share our views, with whom we have met at international conferences, are either imprisoned, silenced, or living in exile abroad.
The Soviet union has refused to take part in the recovery program. Communist parties everywhere have set out to frustrate its implementation. I criticized the western democracies a few minutes ago because of their support of reactionary elements in Greece. But the Soviet union refuses to co-operate with the Balkan commission set up by the united nations, and its lead has been followed by communist controlled nations surrounding that unhappy country.
Had co-operation been established with the Balkan commission, it might well be that reactionary elements in the Greek government might have been replaced by more democratic elements in that country, and a government more satisfactory to the democratic nations might have attained power.
The fact that we condemned British and American policy in this area, though, does not justify in any way the Soviet in ignoring a properly constituted united nations agency. If nations are members of the united nations, then they should fulfil the obligations that flow from that membership. One of the obligations is that they co-operate with commissions and organizations set up to do things which are necessary in connection with the welfare and peace of the world.
A few minutes ago I criticized our government's policy in regard to China. But looking at the other side of the picture, in Korea the Soviet union has refused the united nations commission entry into its zone. It has refused co-operation in the holding of elections under united nations supervision; but instead, it is busily setting up a puppet government for all Korea in its own zone.
We criticized the failure of the western powers to encourage the demand of the German people for social ownership in the industrial areas of that country; but, in the eastern zone, Soviet forces have successfully destroyed the social democratic party by forcing its fusion with the communists, and Germany is divided into two parts.
Then, of course, there is unreasonable use of the veto in the security council, a veto which Canada, in common with other nations assembled at San Francisco accepted on the distinct understanding that it would be used only in very exceptional circumstances. This use of the veto has been abused on a number of occasions. Then, delay in agreeing to discussions for establishing an international
Supply-External Affairs

police force has certainly not improved the situation. I remember that in 1946 when we met at Lake Success, and when the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke on behalf of the Canadian delegation; the immediate establishment of such a force was the principal request made by Canada at that time. I hope that on every possible occasion-and now that we are represented on the security council, those occasions will arise more frequently- our representatives will urge the establishment of that international body for the prevention of aggression and for the disciplining of those who wantonly attack others. If we had such an organization at the present time the picture with regard to Palestine might be transformed.
Then, boycotting of the little assembly by the Soviet union; its opposition to any effective international control of atomic energy- all these have added to the dangerous situation which has developed in our international relations over the last two or three months.
The C.C.F. believes that Canada should resist any attempt by the forces of communism or those of monopoly capitalism, or fascism, to dominate the world. For our part we shall continue to fight against totalitarianism and dictatorships of every kind, whether they come from the so-called communist left or from the fascist or capitalist right.
We believe sincerely that Canada must participate in the defence of freedom and democracy everywhere; but we say that neither communism nor totalitarian forces in any form will be stopped by denunciation and warlike propaganda. The best defence of democracy lies in the establishment of social and economic justice, and in respect for those fundamental human freedoms which are the basis of our own democratic way of life. As the minister said this afternoon, whether we happen to be members of the Progressive Conservative, the Liberal, the C.C.F., the Social Credit or any other party, we all live under these democratic institutions. And any party or anyone who denies the principles of the fundamental rights of human freedom is not a democrat in the sense in which that term is used in our society.
The blind fear of another world war must not replace proper action to provide the hungry world with bread, freedom and the right of all peoples to control their own destinies. I say that these should be some of the aims, indeed the principal aims, of Canada's external policy.
I well remember, and I am sure the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) will remember, how, when we were setting up the economic and social council at San Francisco,

again and again it was emphasized that if we wished to establish peace in the world the people of the world must be fed. Prior to the war-the situation is worse since-about half the people in the world did not know what it was from day to day, every day of every week of every month of every year, to be guaranteed a full stomach, to be guaranteed the bread they needed in order to sustain life.
So, then, because of the urgent necessity for the achievement of these humanitarian policies, we must not allow the recovery of Europe to be hampered by the failure of the great powers to reach a basis for a peace settlement with Germany and Austria. We know that, prior to the war, German industry was vital to the economic health of Europe and the world. Divided into two parts, that country remains a danger to world peace. We know that every effort must be made to reconstruct the economies of the defeated countries in a manner that will make possible both the immediate improvement in living standards and the eventual unification of Germany as a democratic state.
The industries of the Ruhr which are vital to the welfare of the whole of Europe we believe should be placed under public ownership and under international control, so that the resources of the Ruhr may be used for the welfare of all Europe, including Germany itself. May I say in passing it is not my own thought that Germany should be allowed to rebuild her heavy industries so that she might become a threat to the future peace of the world. I said they should be under international control.
The present deadlock among the foreign ministers must be ended, even if Canada and other smaller powers have to ask that the united nations call a special peace conference for the purpose of achieving a settlement. It seems to me that the group of nations that are not of the five great powers cannot allow this matter to drag along and they should endeavour to call a peace conference to make a peace settlement with Germany and with Austria as soon as possible.
My time does not permit me to deal at any length with Japan, but I believe that Canada should press for early action in the drafting of a peace treaty with Japan. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister of external affairs who said this afternoon that Japan should not be rebuilt in such a manner that she may again become a menace to the orient and the rest of the world.
I should like to say a few words about Palestine. The right hon. gentleman dealt this afternoon with the problem of Palestine. This vexed question is before us once again. Canada

Supply-External Affairs
in common with a majority of the nations, supported partition of the country on a political oasis with economic union. The long and jxhaustive inquiry into the conditions in that distressed country resulted in the considered opinion of the nations, taken democratically in the assembly and by the requisite majority, that the settlement suggested by the Palestine commission was the only one which seemed to offer any hope of a solution of the problem. So Canada quite properly supported it.
It was obvious from the beginning that extremists, both Arab and Jewish, had brought about a situation in which the use of united nations forces would be necessary in order to prevent more bloodshed when the British mandate ended on May 15, particularly when the British removed the last of their troops as they intend to do before August 1 of this year. I think we can all understand and sympathize with the present position of the British government; this position is understandable. The people of the United Kingdom will not tolerate a further loss of British lives in a single-handed attempt to preserve order in Palestine. I think that is the position of the British people and no democratic government can gainsay what the people want to do.
Obviously, when partition was decided upon and the forthright statement of the British authorities made, that come what may they would relinquish their responsibilities on May 15, the united nations should have made immediate arrangements for the protection of human life and property while the decision of the assembly was being carried out. That has not been done. An international police force was not established and no other steps have been taken to fill the gap. Here we are on April 29 facing a condition which may not only bring about within two weeks bloodshed and' devastation in Palestine but may create an international situation fraught with grave dangers to us all.
I think the United States must bear considerable blame-that is not often said, but I think it should be said-for the situation which has developed. She has recently proposed a trustee system, but as far as I am aware she has not offered any definite proposals as to how this trustee system should be set up or what the plan of trusteeship may be. In our opinion -here again I am going to agree with the minister of external affairs-Canada, which played such an important part in bringing about the agreement last autumn, should in the meantime continue to support the plan adopted by the. assembly. It was the only plan that seemed to be at all feasible last autumn, and it was approved by the assembly itself.
We should urge the United States to place immediately before the united nations its own plan for the settlement of the difficulties which have arisen in Palestine. If that were done I take it that our great neighbour to the south would then be obligated to participate fully in carrying out any plan which she herself suggested. Having proposed trusteeship, in our view it is the obligation of the United States, as I have said, to place clear and definite proposals before the present assembly and to take a leading part in carrying out whatever may be the decision of the united nations. In other words, I agree with the general viewpoint expressed by the minister in this regard this afternoon-a position of anxious expectation, awaiting definite proposals.
These are some of the great problems that face us at the present time. If I may just refer again to Palestine, we think Canada too should support-if I may emphasize this- the decision of the united nations and at the same time press the security council, of which we are a member, or the assembly, of which we are also a member, for adequate means to prevent further bloodshed in Palestine. To allow the situation to drift would bring distrust of the united nations itself and run the risk of a grave international crisis, the result of which may bring widespread suffering and distress to millions throughout the world.
I see that my time has expired, but before I sit down I want to say that the suggestions which I have placed before the house and the discussion on foreign policy which I have made is not only the viewpoint I hold myself; it is the viewpoint of the party for which I speak. I may say that I went over my rather extensive notes with my colleagues yesterday. So I want it to be known that I believe I speak, not only for myself, but for the movement which we represent.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the address presented to the house this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). I want to compliment him most sincerely on what I consider to be a great effort. I believe the declaration he made this afternoon will go down in history as one of the great declarations on foreign policy made in this country. Of course that does not mean that I agree with everything that was said and I am sure the minister would not expect that much of all of us. But if I do disagree with some things
Supply-External Affairs

it is more the things which he did not say than the things which he did put before us today.
The world situation as revealed by the minister this afternoon, and as one reads about it and watches its kaleidoscopic changes, is certainly one to sober the most frivolous of Canadians. The developments since the summer of 1945 I think can best be described in a general way as a serious deterioration. In many respects the people of the world are abiding in an atmosphere which is somewhat similar in some respects to that which covered the earth in 1938, with the added fear today that stems from the fact that this is the atomic age. Certainly we of this day are groping in confusion and uncertainty; and one is led to ask, where is the brave new world that we were told some years ago we were sacrificing and fighting for during the years from 1939 to 1945, and which was held out to the peoples in the western world to obtain from them an all-out effort against the totalitarian aggressors?
The report of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), after his visit to Europe last autumn, and the speech we heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon have served finally to dispel any illusions at any rate that I might have had that we had even caught hold of the tail of that so-called brave new world.
It is just as well, I think, to take account of some of the things that world war II did to mankind. Nobody won that war. Nobody ever wins a war. Every nation emerged from it materially and physically weakened and, in my judgment, with a considerable decline in the standards of morality and of decency. I suppose that such a result was to be expected as a natural consequence of the training which millions of men from all nations had to be given in the arts of carnage and destruction if they were to win over other millions who were extremely well trained in cruel brutality and complete disregard of human life and suffering. Millions from many nations simply cannot emerge from such training and such activities without some adverse effect upon the general will to resist evil. That, Mr. Speaker, was one of the results or adverse effects that emerged from world war II that I wanted to mention.
Out of that same war, as has already been said, some of the nations emerged all but completely destroyed as great powers. England's vitality was seriously sapped until she could no longer take the initiative in world movements for recovery. Germany was and still is prostrate; France was neutralized, or better, paralysed; Italy had become completely a dependent country. On the other hand

Russia, under the impetus of war and military necessity, discovered sources of new strength and suddenly she became very aggressive. The will to resist her aggression seems to have been dead for two long years and, as a consequence, much of Europe has already fallen to communism. I need only mention Poland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Roumania, and lately Czechoslovakia, which have become satellite states. It has now become clear to all of us, as the minister so well said this afternoon, that Russia aims at European and Asiatic domination at least, and most likely world domination, for she is convinced that communism and capitalistic enterprise cannot long face each other without armed conflict and without one completely destroying the other.
The picture is by no means complete without mention of the United States and a group of small nations all of which emerged from the war greatly strengthened in some respects, although most of them were materially and physically weakened. The United States demonstrated during the war what free capitalistic enterprise can do in an emergency. Without the immense production from that country and from Britain and Canada, Russia would probably have fallen to Germany's military might. It is now known that most of the time that Russia was receiving help from both Britain and the United States she was plotting her post-war drive for world domination at the end of the war. The initiative or leadership in sponsoring world recovery passed to the United States, and she has become the natural leader of the free democratic nations, at least in the sense that most of the remaining free nations look to her because of her very great industrial power, her very large population, her immense wealth and because of her expressed determination to preserve freedom of enterprise and all the other freedoms.
But our good neighbour to the south also came out of that war ambitious, money-proud, and more materialistic, and with an increase in that spirit of self-interest which was mentioned by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) this afternoon.
Today the world is divided into two camps, each with its mighty champion: Russia in the east, and the United States in the west. How long they can face each other without armed conflict I suppose no one can say. I am not one of those who believe that war is inevitable. I believe that war can be avoided, but I will say, sir, I am convinced that the only way we can avoid a conflict is for the remaining free nations to band themselves together and thus provide a preponderance of united economic, moral and material strength to

Supply-External Affairs
prevent further aggression by any totalitarian state or any group of totalitarian states. At the same time I am convinced that we must revitalize and rehabilitate democracy by removing social injustice just as fast as we possibly can and by extending opportunities for our peoples to find for themselves contentment and happiness in real freedom. Only in that way can we demonstrate the superiority of the democratic way of life over the communist way of life.
The world picture is not complete without some mention of another force at work in the societies of the world. The minister did not mention it this afternoon, and I hardly expected him to. I do not believe he is convinced that this force exists, but there are a good many people who are thoroughly convinced that it exists. I am one of those who are convinced of the existence of a group of men, some three or four hundred in number, certainly not less, perhaps more, most of them internationalists and strong advocates of internationalism, who control vast sources of wealth. By means of alliances, interlocking directorates, and machinations of one kind and another they are fast gaining control of the money of the globe.
This is what we in this group have often referred to as world or international finance. It is a tyrannical force just as dangerous and as anti-social as communism. Its tools are imperialism in one form or another, and centralization, which finds its ultimate expression in international cartels. It aims-I speak of international finance-to get control of the economies of the globe. The members of this ring have influence with governments out of all proportion to their numbers, and they are the only beneficiaries of war, which makes it a serious consideration for all mankind.
It seems to me, therefore, that freedom-loving people are faced with two unrighteous forces working for their enslavement-international finance on the one hand, and international communism on the other, the latter proposing to control the people of the globe and to use as its tool the workingman, the proletariat.
The aim of both these forces, international communism and international finance, is power-power over the world. There are many keen students of the whole situation who see behind the scenes co-operation of these two forces. Is it possible that finance and communism, having destroyed the axis powers, having operated quite openly together for a time, and having at last divided the entire world of power into two tremendous conflicting camps, have now reached the parting of the ways? I
wonder. Is it possible that now, facing each other, the one is determined to crush the other, the other to crush the one? I confess Mr. Speaker, I do not know. Certainly there is evidence to support an affirmative answer, and that is one reason why I mention this matter tonight. That is one reason why we must see to it that men and women are put into offices of authority who will get the evidence and give it to the people-conclusive evidence one way or the other.
If we Social Crediters are wrong, for goodness sake come out and show us that we are wrong.


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: It is easy, very easy.


Mr. LOW:: I am looking, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member who said it is easy to get up on his two feet in this house and show us.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: I shall.


Solon Earl Low: A witness of some authority- I could quote any number but I have not the time tonight-has presented evidence. Upton Close in his weekly "Closer Ups" for August 5, 1946, had this to say:
Some of my readers have been unable 'to understand my reference to a new school of big capitalist-communism growing up in America and Britain. It is the same school which, when the time comes, will take us into war with Russia, so that out of the wreckage it can make its group dictators of the round earth.
I do not say that I know the answer, not by any means, but I am convinced that we are in danger from international financial power-hungry men, just as much as we are in danger from international communism. Let us, therefore, not become so preoccupied with the one, international communism, that we fail to prepare our defences and our effective offensive against the other force. I feel that there is danger that we are doing that very thing.
I turn now to another phase of the whole question of international policy, or foreign policy, the question of building a foreign policy for Canada.
As the minister said this afternoon, and said so well, an international policy is a thing of many phases and many aspects. There is defence; there is the question of trade; there is the question of international co-operation, and it even extends into the field of international toleration-all these things. But I say, sir, just briefly, that there are at least two ways of planning any aspect of foreign policy.
In the first place, we might decide what we want and work out a plan of achieving it or
Supply-External Affairs

implementing it, and then announce or publicize it. That is one way. The second way is to announce the plan first and then improvise ways and means of implementing it as you go along.
The United States seems to have followed the latter method, announcing a policy and then improvising means of implementing it as it goes along. What has been the result? Well, it looks to me as though the United States has got herself into a real jam. Not only that, but she has caused the united nation to lose much of what prestige it did have in the world.
In the past few years Canada has, I think, allowed herself to be too much influenced by the policies of the United States of America. Moreover, I think we have been too hasty in committing Canada before the people have been made familiar with what our policy really is. We ought to be much more careful about this in the future. The people of Canada should know where we are headed and, further, they should have a right good idea of the price they will have to pay for the external policies pursued by their government.
I maintain that the people have not been made aware of the price which they will have to pay for the policies to which we have been committed by this government since 1945. In my opinion it is unsafe for us to follow too much the lead of the United States. I say this for various reasons and I will cite just two or three.
In the first place, the United States is a rank amateur in foreign relations. For a good many years the United States refused to take its place in the world community of nations, practising an isolationism in which it was trained in self-interest. And since it is a rank amateur, I would hesitate very much to follow the lead of the United States until she has gained much more experience and has attained much greater stability in international relations.
There is a second reason which I think I have already mentioned, international finance. With the outbreak of world war II, Wall Street suddenly became the headquarters of practically the whole ring of international financiers. That is their headquarters today. I do not cast suspicion on the United States of America when I say what I am saying. I have great respect for our neighbours to the south. I have great love and respect for those people. My own parents came from the United States of America. But when I speak of Wall Street as being the headquarters of the international gang who are plotting, I believe, without any question in my mind, to

control the finances of the world, I say we must keep our eye on Wall Street. The very fact that international finance has its headquarters in New York would lead almost any student to suspect that the men who control the international exchanges would attempt unduly to influence the government of the country in which they live. I say we should either confirm or remove completely the suspicion that Wall Street is today the head of this international gang.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: How?


Solon Earl Low: I say that we must keep our eye on Wall Street.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: How are we to do that?


Solon Earl Low: The third reason why I would hesitate to follow the United States in formulating external policies is this. I have been reading lately of the revelations concerning the agreements at Yalta and Teheran. I do not like to speak disrespectfully of any man who has stood at the head of a nation, but I am prepared to say that the United States made a deal with Russia at Yalta which resulted in the crucifixion of a great country, Poland.


Mr. CAOUETTE:: Hear, hear.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Explain.


Solon Earl Low: The hon. member would not understand even if I explained.


David Réal Caouette: Hear, hear. That is right.


Solon Earl Low: All the facts concerning the agreements which were made at Yalta and Teheran are just now coming to light. Poland and its crucifixion must now be looked upon as the gift which the United States was prepared to give in order to pacify the very power that is today attempting to cut the throats of United States, Canada-


Antoine-Philéas Côté: The hon. member would have done better than Roosevelt, would he?


Solon Earl Low: -and of every other free nation.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order.


Solon Earl Low: I hope and pray, Mr. Speaker, that some time the world will witness the resurrection of Poland, and the other nations which have been sacrificed to communism, and that the United States, Canada and Britain-all of whom must bear some responsibility for that terrible thing-will repent and take their part in seeing to it that the resurrection of these countries is complete.

Supply-External Affairs
I should now just like to say a few words about my experience at the united nations assembly. I was deeply grateful for the opportunity of going to Lake Success. I personally complimented the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the adoption of the new policy which made it possible for members of opposition parties to go to the united nations assembly as advisers, free to speak their minds there, here or elsewhere.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Did they take your advice?


Solon Earl Low: I took their advice.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I asked, did they take your advice?


Solon Earl Low: No, I am afraid not.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Fortunately they did not.


Solon Earl Low: I will attempt to show that it was not so fortunate, as events have turned out. As I say, I was grateful for that opportunity. I tried to do my best while I was there. For nearly a month I attended practically every session, and I was deeply interested in watching this moving drama on the world stage. It was interesting. Sometimes I found it most depressing. I watched the work for a month, and I saw there what made me feel depressed, namely a display of extremely ill-temper. I noted, sir, a serious decline in manners and in humour. As a matter of fact, I did not see much display of that commodity in the whole time I was there. I noted particularly that day after day, in some of these committee debates or discussions, free discussion amongst men degenerated into debate by-what shall I say? These people certainly departed from logic and reason, and it seemed to me that they entered into debate by studied insult. I was happy to note, however, that the democratic nations used great restraint and patience. Our representatives followed that course. I want to compliment them on the way in which they conducted themselves in that regard. Insult and the departure in debate from logic and reason were the means followed by the totalitarian states, led by Russia. Vishinsky, Gromyko, Doctor Bebler of Yugoslavia and others used that style, and they were the only ones who did so; it was somewhat depressing. But it was a measure of great satisfaction to me to note, as I say, the patience, good judgment and restraint used by the democratic nations.
I saw the assembly used by the satellites of Russia as a propaganda body. That was one reason why I believe Russia was anxious to see the headquarters of the united nations established in the United States. I could not escape the feeling that Russia supported the idea of having the united nations headquarters in the United States and the sessions of the last assembly held1 at Lake Success, because they knew that there was a free press there which was willing and anxious to publicize every single thing these fellows had to say-


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: That is right.


Solon Earl Low: -that they had freedom of speech and could say anything they liked, which was something they could not do in their own country. The people of the United States, big-hearted as they are, were naive enough to play up Vishinsky, Gromyko and these others, putting what they said in headlines in the biggest type they could' get and spreading that over the country far and wide, with every radio blaring forth the full measure of this propaganda. I recall that, after Vishinsky made his first vituperative speech, one of the Russian delegates told us at a reception that Vishinsky received thousands of telegrams, letters and cables from people in the United States complimenting him on the stand he took when he called certain people-he named a good many people in the United States, put the spotlight on them-warmongers. The Russians knew what they were doing when they supported the establishment of the headquarters of the united nations assembly in New York. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been the smartest possible move for the nations of the world to have established the headquarters of the united nations as near as they could get it to the Russian boundary.


Mr. BURTON:: They would not have the free press.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Why?


An hon. MEMBER:: Send him to school.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. I think we had better send him to school.
At times, Mr. Speaker, as I witnessed the interplay of those forces at the united nations, I was led to feel just what Doctor Evatt of Australia so well expressed when he said, "There is a danger that the united nations is becoming all harness and no horse". However I did see a useful purpose. The assembly was certainly a sounding-board for world opinion, if it were used for that purpose; but all too frequently it was used for airing purely national politics, or for propaganda.
While I was there I attended most of the sessions of the Palestine committee, and I should like to say just a few words about the Palestine situation. I hope I may be able to deal with it objectively and fairly, because
Supply-External Affairs

certainly I am not a partisan with respect to any of the parties concerned in the affairs of that most unfortunate country. I thought it was a marvellous debate. For the first time in history, as far as I know, the best debaters on that subject in the world met together in a body where they were unfettered, where they were free to speak without fear of unfair criticism or the smear that is all too often used in such cases when men differ one with another. I believe practically all the facts concerning that whole problem were brought before the world in those debates. After listening to the debates for about a month, up to what I thought was the rather weak declaration made by Mr. Herschel Johnson, when he declared the position of the United States after stalling for weeks to work up enough courage to do so, I came to the conclusion that the advocates of partition had failed to make out a case sufficiently strong to warrant a recommendation going to the security council for partition. I thought by far the stronger case was made by those who opposed it; and I am not speaking now of the Arabs alone. I refer to the delegates from India, from China and from several other countries whose contributions I thought were outstanding.
Well, eventually, after following all that was said, I concluded it would be wise for me to advise the delegation that I thought they should not vote for partition. I did so, and I believe I was right. It was not because I felt the Jews should not have a national home. No. I believe with all my heart that the Jewish people are entitled to a place where they can live their lives and develop their culture as they desire. I have never deviated from that belief for the last twenty years. But I thought partition was not the answer at this time.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Why?


Solon Earl Low: The Canadian delegation say they voted for the lesser of two evils. I am afraid I must contend that they were unduly influenced by the United States, and by the fact that the report of the Palestine committee was very largely the work of an eminent Canadian, Mr. Justice Rand. So I suppose it is only natural that they should say, "Well, what other course could we have taken?"
To answer that question I shall need just a few moments. It seems to me it must have been obvious to anyone who studied the whole history of Palestine that promises had been made to both Arabs and Jews in years past and at various times, which made it impossible to partition Palestine without doing grave injustice to one side or the other. In 1915

General MacMahon, in the name of the British government, did make a pledge to the Arabs in a bid for their support in the war against the Turks. In 1917, it is true, the Balfour declaration by Great Britain promised the Jews a national home and lifted the hopes of the Jewish people that in due course they would be able to return to that land, develop their own culture and live at peace. But I ask any fair-minded man: How in the world could the Balfour declaration be implemented if the promise to the Arabs were implemented also? Obviously it was an impossibility; and that being the case, a national home for the Jewish people could not be set up in Palestine without doing injustice to the Arab people.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: A greater statesman than Balfour!


Solon Earl Low: There was another point. Very early in the game the Canadian delegation could have taken this stand: "We do not think the time is ripe to establish a Jewish national state. Some time it may be, but what is the rush? We feel that the wisest course would be to establish what is right and just and righteous, and then try to find means of working it out."
Then it seems to me that Canada was neglectful of her duty some years ago when, at the height of Britain's troubles in administering the affairs of Palestine, the United States entered into what was to it the ancient and honourable game of "twisting the lion's tail." Almost immediately after the first great war, after Britain was given the mandate over Palestine, criticism began to emanate from the United States, aimed at undermining Britain and making it difficult for her to do the job. That continued and increased in force and frequency as the years went by, particularly after the issuance of the white paper in 1939, which for a time abrogated the Balfour declaration, and temporarily put a stop to the immigration of Jewish people into Palestine. Almost immediately thereafter, while Britain's hands were full, conducting a great war, that criticism continued. Terrorism started, and it was not confined to one side. In some respects the Arabs were just as guilty as the Jews in this regard. Terrorism and aggression and force were used. But in the United States high officials, including even the President, criticized; and their criticism of Britain was anything but fair and just under the circumstances.
It seems to me that this is what Canada should have done at that time. Canada should have stepped forward and stood

Supply-External Affairs
shoulder to shoulder with Britain, declaring to the world that she would help Britain resist the attempt to undermine her. We failed Britain then.


William Henry Golding: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that his time has expired.


Solon Earl Low: May I have another moment or two?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Solon Earl Low: Canada should have declared to the world that so long as Great Britain was trying her best to exercise the mandate, and to discharge her responsibilities under it, Canada would stand beside her. We said nothing.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Hear,
hear.


Solon Earl Low: Our silence may have been interpreted in various ways. It may have been interpreted

not by my hon. friend, of course, who keeps on interrupting; he could not interpret anything.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: You will find that out later.


Solon Earl Low: It might have been interpreted as a tacit agreement on the part of Canada that the criticism of the United States was correct. At any rate Great Britain's prestige was weakened. The criticism coming from the United States encouraged lawlessness in Palestine, and undermined the authority of the mandatory power.
It seems to me that Canada at the united nations could have taken this position, and I so advocated. One of the major complicating factors in the whole Palestine problem was the refugee situation in Europe. I think Canada should have declared that the Palestine problem could have been reduced to much more manageable proportions had the first step been to strengthen the work of the international refugee organization to the point where that refugee problem was first solved.
The approximately one million people within the refugee camps in Europe should have been taken care of. China said-and may I say I was much touched by the attitude China displayed-"For many years we have had in the midst of China a thriving Jewish community that has been free to develop its culture as it wished, without molestation from us. They have contributed much to that community. We have given refuge to a great many Jews who were persecuted at the beginning of the Hitlerian regime. We are prepared
to take our share of those people in the refugee camps; and we call upon all nations to declare themselves likewise."
There was too much tendency in the propaganda emanating from various sources in the world to treat the refugee problem as an exclusively Jewish problem. The refugee problem was not an exclusively Jewish problem, because there were only about 200,000 Jews in those internment camps. The remainder were Europeans of various nationalities.
I say that if the united nations assembly had first tackled that problem it would have made it possible to reduce the pressure on the Palestine problem to a point where I believe it could have been managed much more efficiently than it was. And surely that great human problem of the refugees-a million of them, languishing behind the fences of those camps-is a sore blot on the humanitarian feelings and aspects of the various peoples of the nations of the world. Until such time as those people are given a home, and until Canada takes her share, and until the United States takes her share, I am afraid we shall not be able to lift our heads without shame.
India declared that she would take her share of them. I am going to close with this thought-


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Hear,
hear.


Solon Earl Low: -that Great Britain could have been prevailed upon to remain in Palestine.


Mr. HARTT:: Do not coax her.


Solon Earl Low: I should say not now. But I am sure that Great Britain could have been prevailed -upon to remain, had she felt that she had the support of the western powers in the discharge of the onerous duties of -her mandate. I am satisfied she would not have announced her early withdrawal. I think Canada should have supported her. I think Canada should have called for united action in suppressing terrorism and acts of violence in Palestine, and in asking Great Britain to remain there for a period of years, and to have assured her united assistance in the discharge of her duties. And finally, at the end of a few years of 'peaceful living in that unhappy land, the logical thing to do, if we were to abide by the spirit of the united nations charter, as expressed in the preamble, would have been to extend to the people of Palestine the right of self-determination.
If that had been done I believe it would not have been long until the faith of those who believed in the return of the Jews to Palestine could have been justified. Where was the faith, let us say, of the Jews? Where was the
Supply-External Affairs

faith that they had when, with Moses, they looked upon the supposedly uncrossable waters of the Red sea? Did they have a Stern gang then? Did they have an Irgun Zvai Leumi?


Maurice Hartt: We waited two thousand years and it did not work out.


Solon Earl Low: I agree, and I sympathize very much with the hon. member.


Maurice Hartt: Do you? Don't send me flowers.


Solon Earl Low: I sympathize much with the hon. member; but nothing can justify the use of force and terrorism. And I am going to say, in conclusion, that the Jewish people and the Arab people, both of them, lose the sympathy of the western nations through their terrorism and their acts of violence.
A Gallup poll was conducted in Canada on February 7, 1948-


Maurice Hartt: Keep your sympathy and give us Palestine.


Solon Earl Low: Might I be permitted to quote this one reference?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Proceed.


Solon Earl Low: This question was asked in the poll taken in February 1948: when you hear on the radio anything about the dispute between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine, do you find yourself sympathizing more with one side than the other? The replies showed that 58 per cent had no particular sympathies; 23 per cent had sympathies with the Arabs, and 19 per cent with the Jews. Why? Western peoples do not condone acts of violence.
The welfare of the Jews is bound up with the western powers, not with the eastern powers. The western powers have been their friends; Great Britain has been the greatest friend the Jews have ever had; and it should be their faith that, given time and support, Great Britain would do full justice to and by them.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Mr. Smith from the United States would be very proud of you.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I have never attended any meeting at Lake Success; but, listening to the two last speakers, I had the impression of attending a meeting of the united nations.
I listened with pencil in hand to the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. 
Afterwards I had to put my notes in order. But unfortunately I could not listen with pencil in hand when the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Low) was speaking. In the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar there are some rays of hope, because he said this: "Even in these disturbing times there is no reason why war should be imminent or inevitable." This I like. I find it comforting, and an oasis of hope in a desert of distress.
He spoke also of close economic co-operation, which was not to be regarded as a military alliance for war. This is evident, provided that the economic co-operation is not so close as to strangle one. In the third place, he mentioned an attempt at democratic reconstruction to establish a strong democratic political force. This is a fine phrase; I do not know exactly what it means, but it sounds quite good. In all that he said there was not a single word of praise for the united nations. I listened to the leader of the Social Credit party and there was not one word of praise for the united nations. I hope I am not misquoting anyone when I say that.
Unfortunately I had to leave during the able speech of the minister of external affairs. All that he mentioned that was good was the establishment of three new states in the British empire or commonwealth; Ceylon, Pakistan and India. That was all. What did the C.C.F. leader praise about the accomplishments of the united nations in three years? Nothing. What did the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) praise? I do not know. I do not assume that he went any farther because, when I came back to the chamber, he looked very sad about the accomplishments of the united nations. For three years we have had discussions about the united nations. Everybody went to San Francisco; everybody went all over the world, and there were delegations of members of parliament who went to see the wise men and decide the future of the world. Nothing good has been accomplished apparently because no praise has been given.
The same thing happened in connection with the imperial conferences of 1926, 1930, et cetera. The leader of the C.C.F. group made wishes. It is most extraordinary that at the imperial conferences before and after 1930 all that was done by the delegates was to express wishes. They met together and they made wishes. The C.C.F. leader made wishes about the control of atomic energy and the defence of freedom and democracy everywhere.
That is a nice phrase; it sounds good but it means nothing. He spoke of fundamental

Supply-External Affairs
human rights. I was bom with the idea that the man who lives within the law has certain rights. Apparently the hon. member is for the defence of fundamental human rights. What are those rights? He did not enumerate them. It is not in Canada that we are deprived of human rights to any large extent that we have to form a union of all the nations in order to protect our fundamental rights. It is in the larger nations like Russia and its satellites where these rights are affected.
How are we to go about having these rights respected in Russia? There are two ways we can do so. First, we can discuss it with Russia or, second, we can go to war with Russia and impose our way of life on Russia just the same as General MacArthur is imposing it on Japan which is ready to accept that point of view. He is making himself the defender of such actions. I ask the hon. gentleman if this can be done by means other than conciliation, discussion and compromise, on the one hand, or on the other, by the use of weapons, the going to war in order to humiliate a country and to impose our will on it?
We have an example in Japan. Shall we go to war with Russia? We must be logical. If we are to impose these ideas on a country which denies them, the only thing to do is to go to war with that country. The hon. gentleman-when I say "hon. gentleman" I refer to the leader of the C.C.F. group-said that Russia and the United States had emerged from the war as the giants of our time. That is quite true. But that leaves the British empire behind. The two giants are Russia and the United States; the British empire is behind. The hon. member did not say that, but when he referred to two giants he did not mean three.
Then he complained of the division of spheres of influence at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam. He was not as precise and definite as the leader of the Social Credit group, but he complained of the secret treaties entered into by the three big powers, the United States, Russia and Great Britain at those three places. President Roosevelt attended the first two conferences while President Truman attended the other.
Then he said that the great powers have set aside the agreements which were made during the war. There were two kinds of agreements made by the big powers, the public agreements which were not respected and the secret agreements which were respected. The secret agreements entered into at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam were put into force while the Atlantic charter was set aside.
He said that we had condoned the annexation of the Baltic republics, and of Poland. What about the Balkans? If I am not mistaken the minister spoke of the Balkans and of Czechoslovakia. But this is continuing to blame the united nations, although he said that everything that had been done by the united nations was not to be praised.
He concluded rather illogically by sponsoring the relinquishment of an out-moded-national sovereignty. He is a citizen of the world, and he thinks that national sovereignty is out-moded, that the abandonment of our national sovereignty will bring us a premium in the way of an extension of our powers into the affairs of the world at large. Our reward for abandoning our sovereignty will be that we shall have a wider scope in interesting ourselves in the affairs of other countries, and perhaps we shall do just as well as the great powers have done. However, we have no policy.
There is no difference between Ukrainia and Canada except that Ukrainia is under Moscow and Canada is under London. It is the same thing except that they are on opposite sides. We beat the drum .and continue under the illusion that we are running the world. I am sad about it. We should have more of a sense of reality, more of a sense of proportion and a little more imagination.
This is not all that the leader of the C.C.F. said. He said that the members of the united nations should co-operate in the united nations set-up. That is evident and I agree with him. Then he said that political freedom and liberty have been completely extinguished in countries under communist governments. That is also true. We should not forget that Russia would be one of the big powers that would rule us if we abandoned our sovereignty. We shall be governed much more by Russia than by Patagonia and Pakistan; Russia will have much more to say in the government of this country, and like all the countries that are under the domination of Russia and have no fundamental rights, as he called them, we shall be exposed to trouble. He complained again-it was his perpetual complaint-of what the united nations has done ever since its beginning. He complained of the reactionary elements in Greece and China and Spain, and he said that we had not protested against the reactionary elements in Greece or against the mandarins of China, and that we should have a strong democratic policy in that respect; Canada has given diplomatic status to gentlemen going to China to help them; China, one of the great powers in the world today, is still at war; Spain is in a class by itself.
Supply-External Affairs

He also spoke unfavourably of the stand of the united nations in Korea and of the zones in Germany, and of the veto which Canada had expected to be used only in exceptional cases. He admitted that Canada bad accepted the veto, but realized that it was a dangerous thing and was to be used -only in exceptional cases. He was not satisfied with that. He wants to have an international police force. Who would command it? Is it possible that the united nations who are so disunited that they do not agree on a single thing could agree over the command of an international police force? It is impossible.
Then he spoke about Palestine and was not satisfied with what has happened there. He said the United States could be blamed considerably for what had happened in Palestine. He said Canada should urge the United States to place its own plan before the united nations.
He also spoke of the deadlock in the foreign ministers' conference and said that it should be ended. It is a bad picture. He said that we should have a peace front to make a peace settlement. He spoke very nicely. He has a pleasant voice and the gift of speech, but his speech did not stand up. For instance, he spoke of the right of all nations to decide their own domestic policy-


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, here are his words: "the right of all nations to decide their own domestic policy." Yet he favoured the abandonment of our national sovereignty. What logic is there in that? He wants to put us under UNO, where we shall be unable to decide our own domestic policy, and where we shall be ruled by the big powers of Russia, China, the United States and Great Britain. Where is the logic in that?
But he was still more illogical when he spoke of the European recovery program. He said that the nazi regime and the war had scuttled capital ownership, or capitalism-I am not sure just which was the word he used but it was one of them-as we have known them, and that policy, he said, has gone. Having said that he went on to say-and this is the point- that the rehabilitation of western Europe may be a guarantee of future peace. Then, to show how completely illogical he is, he said that the European recovery program is impossible without the generous help of the United States, a capitalist country. He said, on the one hand, that nazism and the war had destroyed capitalism in Europe and that democracy was destroyed, and, on the other, that the only way to re-establish democracy in those countries was to appeal to a capitalist country like the United States. Where is the logic in that

speech of my hon. friend? Even with his musical and charming voice there was nothing to it. It was wind from beginning to end. People listened to it and applauded: What a great speech! What a musical voice! I had the impression of listening to President Roosevelt addressing "My friends."
The leader of the C.C.F. group has the voice of Mr. Roosevelt. I have an old record down home of one of Mr. Roosevelt's speeches. I played it before coming here, and I heard Mr. Roosevelt's voice again tonight; it is the voice of the hon. member. But what a difference! I admire the hon. gentleman. He is one of the greatest debaters in the house. But in Athens there were men who spoke as well as he did tonight. They were great orators, but there was a name for them; they were called sophists, meaning that there was nothing in their arguments.
I have tried to give the impressions of one who listened closely to the speech made by the hon. member. I enjoyed it and I took as much from it as I could.
But now let us go to something else. What will be the future of the world? What do we know about it? What does the opinion of Canada count with the United States, with Russia, with China, even with the United Kingdom? They put us aside at a small table. All those members who have spoken on external affairs have the illusion that the voice of Canada is heard. I have written articles in a big Montreal daily and in a Quebec daily giving my sincere views about the future.
The question at issue is obvious: do we want peace or do we want war? If we want peace, let us try the means to get peace. I am against communism, as a matter of principle, not as a matter of fashion. I am against it because I believe that communism is just deceit, and those who are advocating fundamental rights and liberty are fighting for the protection of the scum of the world and of scoundrels who try to destroy the pillars of the state. That is my honest view about it. As I say, I have written articles which received wide publicity on account of the papers in which they were published, in which I said that it was time for Canada to make her voice heard by the whole world. We have the opportunity. We have our seat on the security council. I believe that the minister of external affairs is a gentleman who has the confidence of the house. He is a member of the government, and in my humble view he should have been at Lake Success all the time to discuss international affairs with the representatives of other nations, in an endeavour to make common sense prevail and to make them understand their responsibilities and to appreciate

Supply-External Affairs
the fact that if all the countries of the world continued to threaten one another we would soon have war. God forbid that such a thing
should happen.
Far from being for communism, I am opposed to it; but I hope that this generation of young men, to whom the younger members of this house belong, and future generations of young men will be spared the atrocities of a third world war. This is more important than the denunciation of any government, and we must consider the facts with coolness. We must not be frightened by threats of the atomic bomb, by any threats whatever. We must be cool in our consideration of the facts, so that our decision to maintain peace in this world shall not be shaken.
After the heroic sacrifices that Canada made during the last war and since the war in helping other countries of the world, I believe honestly and sincerely that the voice of Canada should be heard, that the voice of Canada should be listened to, even if Canada is alone in preaching the sound doctrine of common sense and of peace to the entire world.
But Canada will not be alone, because there are sound principles of peace which have been enunciated by His Holiness the Pope, when he spoke of charity and justice. Last night I was 'talking to one of the brightest members of the press gallery, whom I will not name-when I say that, he will not recognize himself because he is too modest-and he said to me that in order to have peace we should have at least a minimum of justice and charity equal to the minimum of justice and charity that exists between the provinces respectively and the dominion so that they remain together. There should be a minimum of justice and charity to maintain peace in the world, and it is precisely because that minimum of justice and charity has not existed that we have trouble, trouble which has been described by all the members who have spoken in the house today and who have referred to the pitiful role of the united nations organization.
It is to be deplored, and there is only one thing for us to do. Since that experiment of world government through the united nations has not been successful, we must go back to the past and try to make our own alliances with other countries, try to build up our defences, try to protect ourselves. Hon. members will see that the policy of the past will prove in the future to be a much sounder policy, a much better policy than that which has been protagonized by the united nations.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed for many years the question of foreign affairs. I did so long
before I became a member of this house, and I am surprised that more interest has not been taken in this department of government, since it affects the life, liberty and security of every citizen of the country. With so many universities in the country, there are too many pacifist professors and other people who fail to understand that in days like these might plus right is right.
We are living in the midst of a very dangerous situation. I referred to this the other night, when I asked the question that I am about to put to the house once more: from whom did we derive the freedom and liberty which not only we in this country, but the people throughout the North American continent have enjoyed for the past hundred years? Anyone who is sufficiently fair-minded and who will read attentively the lessons of history, including what great English, American and French historians have had to say, will admit, I believe, that the liberty of which we boast today is a possession which we owe to the mother country. Had not the mother country been mistress of the seas for four centuries, maintaining our liberties against Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon and against dictators in world wars twice in our own time, the liberty that we enjoy today would not have been ours.
That agency alone, the supremacy of the motherland on the seas, has protected America's shores. We remember the Holy Alliance on the part of Prussia, Austria and Russia under Alexander the Great, which lasted for eight years, from 1815 to 1823, and we know that Canning studied carefully the situation in Europe, with the result that the United States promulgated what was known as the Monroe Doctrine. What was the Monroe Doctrine in reality, from the year 1815 to the outbreak of the Spanish-American war in 1898? In reality it meant the protection which America, including our country, enjoyed through the supremacy of Britain on the seas. That was the Monroe Doctrine to 1917.
Had it not been for British naval supremacy, we would have been invaded long ago. In 1938 I was almost the only member in the House of Commons who consistently drew attention to the situation that confronted the people of this country. I pointed out that we had no fleet, army or air force at all. A return was brought down in the House of Commons showing that we had a few boats only; the total tonnage was about that of one large 10,000-ton freighter, and there were three or four ships that really could not go to sea. Our navy was small then. They went from
Supply-External Affairs

Halifax on am annual trip to the West Indies in the wintertime on a good) will trip, and when there was a by-election in Victoria they went into the harbour three or four days before the election took place. The navy made a glorious record in the first and second great wars.
In 1938 we had practically no army, navy or air force. What did we depend upon for our defence? Upon the mother country. The mother country protected our shores from the invader in the last war. There are members of this house, veterans, who appreciate what I am saying. Had it not been for the mother country, Canada would have been invaded, not only in the maritimes but right up the St. Lawrence. As a matter of fact, the enemy did go up the St. Lawrence to a point near Riviere du Loup. I saw the place where they were.
Take the Pacific. When the war broke out in 1939, from Puget sound to the Queen Charlotte islands, a distance of 689 miles, there was no protection except that which was afforded by the British fleet, which had to withdraw' owing to events in other parts of the world, in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.
I believe in paying tribute where tribute is due, and I repeat that, but for that agency, we would have had all the horrors of w'ar on our own soil, not only in the maritime provinces but in Quebec and Ontario and throughout the rest of Canada, and people would have been carted away by the Soviets. We know' what happened when the iron curtain came down on Russian satellite countries in Europe. It would have happened in the first and second wars, but for Britain's command of the seas.
When the answer was given in the British House of Commons the other day, the figures were left out. The Navy League gave them away. What have we today? We have a war economy. We are just as close to war at the present moment as we have ever been, if not closer. Russia will strike when she is ready. No matter what we may like, no matter what the people think in Quebec, Ontario, in the maritimes, in the west or in Washington either, Russia will strike when the hour has come. The Russians may strike at this country. It will be a bitter battle. If they repeat what they have done in the twenty-six other small countries of Europe, where they have taken millions of people away to work as slaves, they may do the same thing in Canada also, if they win.
Where is the UNO? Why do they not give out a return and give us some information

about the slaves of European Soviet satellites so taken? We have all these gentlemen away down there at Lake Success. I call it Lake Failure. It is the biggest failure we have had. We have had many of these leagues. I referred to one a moment ago, namely the Holy Alliance. We had a second one, about the collapse of which very little is heard. In the reading room I found only one paper which mentioned three lines about the millions of dollars tied up in buildings over at Geneva in Switzerland. It is closed up without any big headlines in the newspapers or publicity over the C.B.C. or anything of that kind.
Having regard to world conditions at the present time, and the dangerous situation prevailing, we have not enough members present. I would call attention to the number of vacancies here in the house tonight. The situation is always the same when external affairs are being discussed. A large number of seats are always vacant. We had a hard time keeping a quorum here last year when this subject of foreign affairs was up for discussion. This is the seventy-third day of the session and this is the first opportunity we have to discuss foreign affairs.
Just look at the figures here. This department is now spending $9,685,942. For what? On foreign affairs. I wish to speak particularly with respect for the present minister, because I know he is serving here at great sacrifice to himself and his family. He is doing so because of his fine spirit and for the good of the country. Anything I have to say tonight is intended as no reflection on him at all. I am just dealing, as in other years, with certain principles. I hope the house will understand that.
I believe everyone is entitled to his view. It is all right to have your own view, the right view and the other fellow's view, but do not forget the other fellow's view. That is the way I have always handled problems in this house and out of it. I have never allowed politics or religion to mix up with friendship. I look upon the House of Commons as a gentlemen's club, and we are supposed to represent our constituents to the best of our ability.
This department's estimates have gone up by leaps and bounds until the figure is now at $9,685,000. They want to keep up with the Joneses, if you please. They seem to think we are a great first-class power.
What did we agree to away down there at San Francisco? A great many people went there. All the parties were represented. That is the greatest mistake the House of Commons has ever made, of wanting a nonpartisan debate on foreign affairs. Until recently it was not the practice for selected members from the parties of the House of Commons

Supply-External Affairs
to take such a trip I never was one who objected to taking a trip. I myself never had much opportunity to take a trip; in fact, I have never been in the old country. I may say that I am not criticizing any members of the house for taking all the trips they like. This was a magnificent event down at San Francisco. Mr. Churchill agreed to it reluctantly. It was started by the late President Roosevelt to whom I paid a great tribute the other night. But it was a flat failure.
What did we agree to down there? We signed, sealed and delivered our people to doom at the league of nations at Lake Success. What did they agree to down there? They agreed to give the Big Five at San Francisco the veto power, so that one of them could veto everything the others did. Do hon. members understand that? Just fancy the situation-no referee and no umpire! One player can just tell the referee to get out of the grounds, can tell the timekeeper to go home, and say "I am it." Did you ever hear of a game like that? It is a game of hide-and-go-seek and bluff; that is all it ever was. What did they do? They went to work with a lot of these fellows down there. We have some fellows down there- pardon me; we have some hon. gentlemen down there. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was there. I was glad to see him take a trip over to Russia and talk to Stalin. He embarked on the sea and, as I said the other night, I suggested to the house leader (Mr. Mackenzie) that he should give the member protection. I was afraid that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not get away from there, and that Stalin might keep him.
I will just say this. These expenditures are too great for this country. If you study the situation carefully, what do you find? Has this nearly 810,000,000 of expenditures contributed to the peace and security of this country? To it must be added the cost of the league of nations and the cost of Lake Success. Millions of dollars worth of buildings down there were torn down and a great big mansion is being built at Lake Success. The tower of Babel was not in it. That is all it ever was. It is the most mischievous institution we have ever had. It produced the present Russian situation. Has Lake Success made it any easier for the United States to get on with Russia? The answer to that is no. They made it ten times worse.
In connection with these estimates, I just want to point out that there must be added the cost of our people down there. These
people go there. Once the session is over, it is a nice soft trip to go to Lake Success and stop at the Biltmore hotel in which a whole floor is at their disposal. I can tell you that is running up to a big sum of money.
One paper in the old country, the Patriot, printed some of the menu cards at the sumptuous banquets down there. At a time when the people are starving in Europe and when millions are deported to work in Russia as slaves, this fabulous sum of money is being spent in this way. I can tell you this. You must add on to that the first and second Geneva, the cost of Lake Success and San Francisco. And to the ends of the earth and over the seven seas there are these novice ambassadors, their excellencies. They travel all over the seven seas.
What have we in addition to that? We have trade commissioners in all these countries, and they do ten times more work by getting trade for this country. We are the fifth trading nation in the world now, it is claimed. We have these trade commissioners who are really doing good work and providing work for our industries by sponsoring trade and commerce on the seven seas. That is the most fateful mistake ever made, dividing Britain's representation as ambassadors on the seven seas. As Clemenceau and many others said about Britain, it is the hardest country in the world to make a treaty with. Why? Because so many of the dominions and all these other people must have a say about the matter, and they can never act as one united nation as the United States do. I have great respect for that country. I paid it a great tribute the other night in the house. I greatly admire the people of the United States. But I can tell you this. This representation abroad is in salaries alone costing over $5,000,000. There is a big increase in it this year. We have their excellencies in every little country in South America and all over the seven seas. No wonder there are so many applications for these positions on the seven seas.
Let me say a word for a minute or two tonight about policy. Canada has never had a foreign policy. The policy we have had in this house has always been one of "We have no commitments; parliament will decide." We were ten days late in getting into the war. What was the result? The Athenia was sunk with 130 Canadians on board. The Athenia was sunk about the third day of the war, although it was September 10 before Canada declared war on Germany.
Supply-External Affairs

We have never had a foreign policy, and we have none now. The minister's policy is confined entirely to the UNO at Lake Success. Well, there will be a rude awakening if the enemies of our country come here. We tried that- before. We know that some of my hon. friends to the left said we should no longer go to London or Glasgow in connection with matters of defence, but we should go to Washington. That proved to be poor advice, because they could not defend their own country; and they are a great nation. The United States has never had a foreign policy, other than that followed1 by Washington, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson and Madison, which was a policy of no foreign entanglements unless the country was invaded. From* 1815 until the Spanish war in 1898 they had no foreign policy at all. The Monroe Doctrine was their policy, backed' up by the protection of the British fleet.
Then in 1898 the Spanish war came along, and in 1900 there was a presidential election. What happened then? The government had committed itself to defence on the Pacific ocean, seven thousand miles from San Francisco and from' that day forward the United States had no foreign policy. They had none in the two great wars. Their policy was to do nothing unless they were invaded; but they were forced into the last war bj' what happened , at Pearl Harbor. Russia also came into that war because she was invaded by Germany. Britain came into the war because of her pledge to Poland. She went to war voluntarily and sacrificed everything. Today that nation is starving, and it has lost all its foreign investments.
Just think for a moment of Britain's position at the close of the last war. She was at the peak of her career, the most respected nation the world over. She was looking after Palestine, India, Egypt, Greece and all those other countries, after her armies had marched across the desert under our present great governor general, one of the greatest soldiers of all time and one of the most successful diplomats Britain has sent anywhere.
We have now no foreign policy except Lake Success; and if we are depending on that we are depending upon a pipe dream, the most mischievous institution we have yet had. Look at the disaster they have caused in Egypt, India, Palestine, Greece, and the Balkans. Look at the disaster on the Bosphorus and in Greece, all because of this united nations policy. Look at the situation in the Netherlands East Indies and in Burma, also in India where we have four hundred million people with no protection at all. With a wave of their hand, a pacifist

government in England destroyed, as Churchill said recently, the whole British empire in a little less than two years, though at the close of the last war Britain stood in a superior position throughout the 'world.
I say of both the United States and Russia that they want to be imperial nations. When they came into the war I said they might not want to grab territory, but we should wait and see. Look at what Russia has done since that time. Hitler was not in it with the cruelties that have been exhibited by this Soviet nation toward the satellite countries it has invaded.
Then they speak about giving up our sovereignty. Let me plead with those who talk that way, including some of my hon. friends across the chamber for whom I have a great deal of respect. Let me remind them that a million men went to the first great war from the dominions. They did that under their own status, autonomy, and sovereignty. No one asked them; they went voluntarily. We remember what they did in that war. Some 130,000 fell on the field of battle, including many young people from the province of Quebec, and what they did changed the history of the whole civilized world.
In the second great war they did the same thing, only in much larger numbers. They came from cape and island and continent during the two years Britain had to go it alone. We remember when the submarines in 1942 were in the St. Lawrence. There was a secret meeting of this house, which I did not attend, at which the navy minister spoke of the great danger in the St. Lawrence. The young men of the commonwealth went to the colours to defend the mother country which had stood by them in the past and given them the freedom they enjoyed. I ask for fair play and fair treatment in view of what that great nation has done.
In my opinion the UNO has made Russia
and the United States enemies forever. It is not diplomatic to attack Russia and so invite them here. We remember when the league of nations, which was to save the world, passed away. There wrere on mourners, and only three or four lines in the newspapers. Now they have started a new organization at Lake Success. Some of the universities and high schools in Toronto were visited by these people; and what did they say? They said, "Well, you will have to give up your sovereignty if you want security." Where would we have been in the first great wrar if we had given up Hong Kong and the Cape, and Gibraltar to the control of any league of nations or foreign country? We vrould have had to remain neutral and Germany would have won

Supply-External Affairs
the war. Many people who are supposed to be learned do not know much about foreign affairs or history.
What would be our position in the coming war if we did what they suggest? That war is sure to come. It is just a matter of time. Mr. Attlee has said so. Mr. Churchill has warned the nation. Mr. Truman issued a warning only the other day. General Bradley, head of the United States army, and many others, have given the same warning. The situation is very grave.
Those are my realistic views, and I believe they are correct. No thoughtful people ever believed that any agency at Lake Success could achieve the results claimed for it. We have heard the same thing before. At Lake Success they even say, "Let's pretend we have security." Well, the Stuarts had pretenders to the throne; so had the. Plantagenets, and others. That is the trouble about depending on Washington for defence instead of having an all-empire policy. The trouble is that we have surrendered too much political, economic, social and military initiative to Washington. Our defence policy has been made in Washington-. Just recently the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) went there and saw Mr. Forrestal. What about? Did he confer with the representatives of New Zealand and Australia? I asked that question in the house and the reply was no. I asked if he had consulted Britain about our defence on the seven seas. Again the answer was no.
I would remind hon. members that, owing to the present government in Britain, we have not a battleship on the seven seas today, and according to the Navy League, neither a battleship nor an aeroplane carrier nor a destroyer in service on the seven seas today. I take very little stock in what is going on at Lake Success. If you are to depend on what happens there you might as well make no preparation for war at all. If I had my way I would revive the empire training plan at once in Canada as a measure of security for this dominion.
Further than that, New Zealand and Australia, through Mr. Fraser and Mr. Curtin, from that very chair where the deputy clerk is now sitting, pleaded with us to have an empire council for trade, defence and migration within the empire. Had we had that, we would have needed nothing more; because Great Britain with her dominions is stronger than the United States or Russia, in natural resources, raw materials or manufactures, and all that kind of thing.
If the dominions would only hang together along those lines they would need no other
agencies to achieve their purpose. That is admitted. In the spring of 1946 Australia and New Zealand asked for a conference. That was before the disasters iin India, Palestine, Burma, Greece and the Suez. In all of these we had interests. They asked that a conference of dominions be called in London. The Prime Minister of Great Britain was favourable to it, but we would not attend. Our policy, it was said, was: We have no commitments; parliament will decide.
The people have been blindfolded. People back home in the constituencies know very little about foreign affairs; they know nothing about it at all. But they are very much alarmed at the present time about the lack of the freedom of the seas and no defence at all. From where are they to get their information? Will it be from the universities? No; one of the men from the universities, now a professor and pacifist, was over in Geneva for years; he has written books about it. We shall have a rude awakening along those lines.
I believe we should have had a defence policy long ago. I should like to find out from the government if it has any information to give the house with respect to the millions of slaves in Soviet camps in which the Russians have placed conscripted men from many Soviet satellite countries of Europe. Have the united nations asked Russia to return these people to their homes? I should like to find out about that.
The cost of the Department of External Affairs is fabulous. If we had the policy about which I have been speaking, Britain aided by her dominions for defence purposes os a unit, we would then have within the empire a defence which could be depended upon. We know that in the last two wars Great Britain, save for aid from the dominions, acted alone against the axis powers for two and a half years. She had to go on alone because it took the United States a long time to get in. They were not ready for nearly three years. We must always have good relations with the United States. That is more important now than it ever was before, and it was only a short time ago that I paid tribute to their late president and that great nation with the same views as our own on freedom.
The United States had great success in its conduct of the war. If that success continues in peace, then we shall have some hope of meeting the eastern powers-the Russian power. Neither the league of nations, nor the present united nations organization can solve the problem. The Marshall plan is a little late, but it has the support of the government, and I too support it. I doubt if it will arrive in time.
Supply-External Affairs

But neither the leagues nor the Marshall plan, nor any other plan, can do for the British empire what co-operation and enterprise and the strength of our own dominions, with the mother country, could do as a unit for the world and for civilization. These are our own interests; we have depended upon them, and have made a success in two long wars, and in many other wars before that. It would be far better for us to depend upon the empire than to depend upon twenty-six nations now united in a Lake Success agency, which is nothing but a tower of Babel at New York.
If that is the government's policy, I do not like it. If that is the policy of the opposition, then I am sorry for the opposition-because we are supposed to have a traditional policy. We have always believed in paying tribute where tribute is due. I am sorry there are so many members away tonight when these important matters are being discussed, because this may be the last opportunity for a discussion of this kind; this session may be over before the rude awakening comes.
None of these agencies can do what the mother country with her dominions could do. We used to have an empire parliamentary association. But it might just as well be wiped off the map altogether. What did they do? They turned themselves into a pan-American organization, and forgot all about the empire. The result is that they have not the influence that they should have in this country. The empire parliamentary association used to be an up-to-date organization of men from Quebec and from all the other provinces-and some of the best men came from Quebec. But they just turned it into a pan-American organization, forgetting all about the empire, and all that kind of thing, with no agency to inform our country of its defenceless situation.
Then, what is this thing called a customs union? Well, I can tell you what it is. During the second great war I said this:
"The proposal for political amalgamation between Canada and the United States will find little or no response in Canada while we are a unit in our admiration for the people of our devoted ally in this war and have the same common views on the war and the new world to come. Canada will continue forever on her destiny, yesterday, today and forever in a union of hearts and hands with the mother country and her dominions for all time.
We are not an independent nation. Such castles in the clouds had a rude awakening when this war began. We are a link in a chain of free dominions and colonies within and making up the British empire. Talk about annexation with the United States? No. There is no feeling whatever in favour of it. Nor of independence, either. This war showed the folly

of small independent nations. Canada was the chief drifter from the mother country for the twenty years between the two wars-the most disastrous years which almost finished freedom, liberty and even civilization itself. Canada's dream of status isolation and separatism exploded and never again will she depend on such folly as pacifism and isolation.
In future, linked with Britain, our policy should be might plus right, and the time has come for Canada to cease whining about status. Status and autonomy and that empire-wrecking Statute of Westminster helped cause this *war."
This is from the Monetary Times also of September, 1943.
"What Canada has done the past forty-four years she has done of her own volition and she will do the same again gladly, namely to come to the aid of the mother country in her hour of peril . . .
I believe in what Mr. Churchill said, that he "would not preside over the liquidation of the British empire." Certainly Canadians will not let it go by default. Canada is not going to be talked out of the British empire. Canada will have to be fought out of the British empire. If Canada could have been talked out of it long ago this would have been done . .
No customs union is wanted in this country, because a customs union would refuse to the dominion the right to protect her industries, even against British competition.
Today we are facing very dangerous conditions. There is the drastic curtailment of the British empire, civil war in India, revolution in France, race war in Palestine, some kind of struggle between Soviet Russia and the United States, and various other strifes, too numerous to mention, in other corners of the world.
There is no such thing as "Peace on earth, good will toward men". The other day there was a meeting in England at which the Earl of Athlone presided. The Archbishop of Canterbury was there, as was the Cardinal of Westminster, who visited this building last summer. There -were also the moderator of the Presbyterian church, and representatives of the Free Church of Scotland, the Baptist church and others. What did they declare for? They declared that Christianity is facing a very difficult struggle, and said that if we are to have peace on earth and good will toward men, and if we are to have the gospel of Christianity, from now on Christian churches must stand together against communism or communism will win. That was what was said.
Last Monday, after the king and queen had celebrated their anniversary, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Doctor Geoffrey Fisher, denounced communism as a-
. . . militant political S3rstem which in denying God, degrades and enslaves men.
That system reveals itself in its working as utterly hostile to the basic principles of Christianity and of human liberty.

Supply-External Affairs
Because of its totalitarian claims it must be resisted at every point; but the final answer can only be given by a free society which so expresses freedom as to abolish the social and economic disorders out of which communism sprang.
I should like to quote what a great bishop of the Church of England, the gifted and learned Right Reverend R. J. Renison, said, in part, in an article yesterday in the Globe and Mail editorial page on "Where are the Peacemakers?"
Where are the Peacemakers?
The Kingdom of Jesus is a Kingdom of Peace. That was one of the names given to Him by ancient prophecy-"The Prince of Peace." That was the hymn the angels sang on the night of His lowly birth. "Peace on Earth." That was the picture given to us by prophet and psalmist of the reign of Christ. It is a reign of love and brotherhood and peace.
And again:
If we were living in a Christian world, there would be no war. The first thing to remember is that you cannot separate human life as a whole from the question of war. We have no faith in the argument as to what the attitude of Christ would be in the world today based on Bible texts, flung from one side or the other. We must remember that Christianity is a spiritual thing that grows from the inside, and we must accept the present crisis in terms of challenge rather than dismay.
And again:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." In the original Greek they are called the sons of God.
The united nations at Lake Success do not mention any of that in their charter. The mother country is one of the greatest nations that we have ever seen in the world. As Tennyson said in his "In Memoriam":
Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be.
They are but broken lights of Thee,
And Thou, O Lord, art more than they.
As James Thomson said in his poem "The
Seasons":
The nations not so blessed as Thee Must in their turn to tyrants fall Whilst thou shall flourish Shall flourish great and free The dread and envy of them all.
Britain will not sit back and be content to be a second-class power. She still rules the waves. As James Thomson, the Scotch poet, said when he wrote "Rule Britannia", Britons never shall be slaves.
Next to the Christian church, no other agency has done so much for the freedom of the world, and for civilization as has the mother country on the seven seas. The mother country, notwithstanding the terms of the Bretton Woods agreement and the hard terms of the United States loan, can live a few more months the hard way. We have seen [DOT]ecently the collapse of statesmanship.
Sir John Macdonald laid down the policy of this party back in 1844 when he said that the prosperity of Canada depended upon its permanent connection with the mother country and that he would resist to the utmost any attempt, from whatever quarter it might come, which would tend to weaken that union. He went on to say:
For a century and a half this country lias grown and flourished under the protecting aegis of the British crown. Under the broad folds of the Union Jack, we enjoy the most ample liberty, we govern ourselves as we please, and at the same time we participate in the advantages which flow from association with the mightiest empire the world has ever seen. As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born and a British subject I will die.
That has been the consistent policy of the Laurier government. As Sir Wilfrid said, when Great Britain is at war, Canada is also at war. Sir Wilfrid went over to the diamond jubilee celebration and he was the first in the diamond jubilee procession. He established British preferential trade for which he deserves a great deal of credit. He was a beloved figure in this country.
I realize that economics are partly to blame for war, but in this connection I should like to quote the first verse of chapter four of the general epistle of James, which reads:
From whence come wars -and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
That is correct. We have something like that here in connection with the bases on the Atlantic from Newfoundland to British Guiana. These were given under 99-year leases during the war. I contend that those leases should be cancelled and charged to lend-Iease. I realize that, had they not been there in the battle of the Atlantic, the shores of North America would have been invaded.
There will be another opportunity to speak. I have great respect for the minister, and I am sorry the government of the day and the opposition have not some other policy to depend on than the united nations at Lake Success because they are going to find out in a few days, as the historians will record, that it is of no great value as an agency for the peace of the world and security and will not make it any easier for the United States to get on with Soviet Russia.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I will preface my remarks by felicitating most sincerely the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the wonderful peroration he made this afternoon, which no doubt will be a guide and a chart to the Canadian people generally speaking
3^76

Supply-External Affairs
when dealing with foreign policies. The same compliment could also be addressed to all previous speakers on this subject.
I am not in entire agreement with some of the statements that have been made, although no one can doubt their sincerity. I should like to make one or two brief references to parts of the fine speech delivered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He knows that I have great respect for him. I appreciate the talents he has given so freely to the House of Commons. He is really an asset here.
There are some things which I believe could easily have been left out of a discussion of this kind. In referring to the rehabilitation of Europe, he said that he did not think capitalism should be revived. I cannot understand why an expression like that is being used in such a discussion. We know that the word "capitalism" in itself does not mean anything. What we have in this country and what we have in most sections of the world is progressive capitalism. Almost in the same breath, a few moments afterward, he found it possible, and rightly so, highly to compliment the United States and Canada upon the help which they intend to give under ERP.
The United States is a progressive capitalistic country. The same is true of Canada, and that would apply also to South America and many others that I have no time to mention. I cannot comprehend why he should find it possible to criticize the system we have in this country, the system with which the majority of people seem to be in agreement. I would rather have progressive capitalism than governmental capitalism such as they have in Russia. We must of necessity remember these things when discussing a matter of this kind.
I would be the last person to criticize the leader of the C.C.F., but I do not think he should have tried to tie in fascism with the capitalistic right. What has the capitalistic right to do with fascism? Is there any fascism in this country? I repeat that the great majority of the Canadian people believe implicitly in progressive capitalism. I for one believe in it. Practically all the people in Canada believe in that system. That is why I deplore to a certain extent that the hon. member, in his masterpiece of a speech, should have tried to slap the face of progressive capitalism upon which the countries of western Europe and Asia, all the devastated nations, must of necessity rely at the present time to receive the help they require. Help will be given liberally, but it will be from so-called progressive capitalistic systems.
Let us visualize for a moment what happened during the last war. Was not Great

Britain, that fine, heroic nation, operating under the*progressive capitalistic system? Was not Canada a progressive capitalistic country? We know that the United States, the country which came along with us later, is also a progressive capitalistic country. What did we do under that system? By our inventiveness, our terrific and almost unlimited products we pulverized fascism and nazism, and were in a position to help an ally which had governmental capitalism. That should be appreciated; that should be considered.
I have no quarrel with any parties in this country or with their political ideologies, outside of communism, but why try to put progressive capitalism on the same level as fascism or communism? Such a statement is absolutely unfair and unwarranted. Why condemn a system which has proven satisfactory and beneficial, not only to our cause and that of our allies but to the whole of Europe and the world, and which will be able to do still more?
I speak with all humility on external affairs. The united nations and its activities have been severely criticized by the two previous speakers, but if we would be fair we should reflect how hard it is for us to settle our own national and even regional problems in Canada. We have spent the greater part of the last three weeks, for instance, in discussing freight rates, which no doubt is a national problem, and that discussion should have made us realize how difficult it is in a country like Canada, where we enjoy to the full democracy and freedom of speech, to find a solution of our national or even regional problems. If in a country like Canada, which is blessed with prosperity and where our people live together in harmony, it is difficult for our governments, dominion, provincial and municipal, to solve their problems, how much more difficult it must be for the united nations, with fifty-seven members, coming from every section of the world, to find solutions for complex international problems. It is easy to say: what audacity you members of the Canadian parliament have to try to solve the problems of the world by a wave of the hand, by propounding certain ideas you have at heart, when you cannot solve the problems in your own country. But unless we practise unity of purpose and try to reach a common understanding of each other's problems, how can we expect the fifty-seven nations who are members of the united nations to have unity and co-operation and that much-needed understanding in a so much wider field of action.
Unlike the two previous speakers, I do not believe that the united nations is a pipe

Supply-External Affairs
dream. It is a living reality that has already accomplished great things. Let us visualize for a moment the alternative if we did not have the united nations at the present time. What would have happened in Greece, Indonesia, China and other danger points in the world? Perhaps our hopes were too high when the nations of the world met in San Francisco, but there was reason for exaltation at that time when the nations of the world got together with the war still raging, with Japan not then defeated, and so that meeting was received with great enthusiasm and high hopes which led to the formulating of the charter, a marvellous document which, if we would implement it in spirit and accept its worthy principles, would help to bring peace and unity to this world.
It would be presumptuous of me to say that the united nations has not difficult problems before it; that it always functioned smoothly, but I know that the Canadian people are fair on that score. In my own constituency I happen to be very fortunate. We have at least a dozen study groups which, over the past few years, have held several meetings to discuss the activities of the united nations, external affairs and international problems. They have set to work to study these problems seriously and have received the necessary information from the personnel of the united nations. On several occasions I was asked to speak to them. The result has been that they are realists and they know and fully appreciate what has already been accomplished by the united nations.
It would be unfair for me to say we are absolutely satisfied with all the activities of the united nations. Some of the criticisms levelled against it by previous speakers are no doubt warranted and necessary to make; but I repeat, let us be realists and face the fact that our own problems in this country, the grain question, maritime rights, the flood situation, freight rates-I could go on with the list ad injinitum-cannot be solved by political partisanship, by destructive criticism
or by political jockeying but only by a patient effort at understanding and by unity of purpose on the part of every Canadian. The same principle applies with greater force to the problems confronting the united nations. If people come there with an axe to grind and without any ideas of co-operation they are bound to defeat the high purpose and ideals of the united nations. I now move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I have the consent of the house, so that we may continue this debate tomorrow, to move:
That the provision of standing order 28 relative to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question put be suspended for the sitting of the house on Friday, April 30, in order that the present debate on external affairs may be continued.
Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I ask, will that debate continue throughout the day, or will there be the usual hour from eight to nine o'clock for private bills?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There will be the usual hour from eight to nine o'clock for private bills.


Mr. MacNICOL:: If the debate on external affairs is concluded tomorrow, will the house go into supply?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If this debate is concluded before the end of the day, it would be the intention then to move that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the committee on external affairs, and after that, the Minister of Agriculture would continue with the debate on the agriculture estimates in committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 30, 1948