[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Timmins be substituted for that of Mr. Green on the special committee on veterans affairs.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved:: That the name of Mr. Cournoyer be substituted for that of Mr. Cote (Verdun) on the special committee to consider amendments to the Dominion Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) moved the first reading of Bill No. 220 (from the senate) to amend the Loan Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved the first reading of Bill No. 221 (from the senate) to provide for the winding-up of the Penny Bank of Ontario and the repeal of the Penny Bank Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Lucien Menard. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Sheila Trench Thomson Ellis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Alexandre Hebert.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Anne Green-blatt. Pliss.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Sonnie Levitt Shereck.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of James Young.- Mr. Maybank.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, last evening in dealing with this very important subject I said I was speaking in all humility because I realized the breadth and diversity of the problems we face when we discuss matters having to do with foreign relations. I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who to a certain extent criticized the amount of money being voted for external affairs. Personally I have always been in favour of the strictest economy in all departmental activities, but in my view the total of some $9,000,000 being spent on external affairs is one of the finest investments this country could make.
The hon. member for Broadview, along with every other hon. member of this house and every citizen of this country, is to some extent responsible for the extension and expansion of the external affairs department; and I will amplify this statement. Up to the time of the South African war at the end of last century Canada and the United States were in a complacent mood, because in those days we realized, and had reason to believe, that we were protected by the British navy, while the Monroe doctrine was fully implemented as far as the great American nation was concerned. It is an historical fact, knowm now to everyone who wants to study history impartially, that the Monroe doctrine was capable of implementation purely and simply because of the wonderful shield and protection afforded by the British navy to all civilized' nations, and this applied most certainly to the American republic.
In the 1910's, for instance, who would have thought we were going to have a world war, in which every country would be directly interested and eventually participating? Geographically speaking Canada was supposed to stand
Supply-External Affairs

apart from any European conflict. We had then thrown aside any idea of participating in any imperialistic war. But the moment we heard that shot at Sarajevo, when the Austrian duke was killed for political reasons, even on this continent we realized that the world was smaller than we knew it in the nineteenth century. It was true that we had no fear from the north. We had no potential enemy there and were protected by nature, by the Arctic ocean and ice cap. It was also true that we had no fear from the south, because we thought and lived much the same as our American friends did. In those days many of us asked' ourselves why we should participate in a European conflict, and why we should not let the nations of Europe settle their own problems, by war if they wanted to do so. Undoubtedly that opinion was held even more strongly by our friends to the south. But it did not take us long to realize that we were part and parcel of the whole world, and that no longer could we consider keeping ourselves isolated from the rest of the nations, no matter how far away they are from our borders.
That is why Canada participated, rightly and gloriously, in the war of 1914-18. Eor many dreary, deadly months we hoped and prayed that the great nation to the south also would participate on the side of democracy and freedom. Eventually, after the Lusitania disaster, they realized that it was also their war. They knew their own shores were no longer immune; that if there was danger to England there was danger to France and the whole of Europe from the hordes of the Kaiser and of Austria; there was also danger to her own soil. They suddenly realized that they had to come into the conflict and stay until the bitter end so as to save democracy and freedom.
Then in 1939, after a period of peace which was all to short, again we realized that the world was growing smaller. National frontiers had disappeared owing to the great advances in physical science. We were all brothers together. It is true that we had to go through the humiliation of Munich; but perhaps that had to be because we were not realists. All the democracies were hoping and praying that we would not have another war such as we had from 1914 to 1918. But we know what happened in 1939; and to her great glory and honour once more Canada realized that she had to be in that battle for Christianity, freedom and democracy. As in 1914 we realized that even if it meant the tribulations of a horrible conflict, those barbaric hordes led by Hitler and Mussolini had to be confined within the borders of Europe
['Mr. Bradette.]
and detroyed there; that otherwise they would spread death and destruction throughout the continents of the world.
It took quite a while for our friends to the south to realize how serious was the situation, and again we must thank a kind Providence that in those troubled days the head of the great American republic was one of the greatest statesmen the world has ever known. He appreciated then the seriousness of the situation, though he was a pacifist like our Prime Minister, like the members of this parliament and every Canadian. We were praying and hoping for peace, but he knew the storm clouds which were hovering over Europe were bound to spread to every section of the world. Almost by himself, by his own courageous actions, he aroused American public opinion even before Pearl Harbor.
I have been told on good authority that in a discouraged moment Mr. Roosevelt confided to one of his best friends that though he had thrown everything he had into the battle, his great talent, his high office, his wonderful oratorical eloquence, he was afraid he was losing ground before American public opinion. But then came Pearl Harbor. It is true that prior to this Mr. Roosevelt and leading Americans of all parties in that great nation had heard appeals from Great Britain, which was almost alone for over a year, the only human rampart against the hordes of barbarism, paying the horrible cost in young lives and old lives and in destruction of indescribable magnitude. Mr. Roosevelt and the United States were told that Britain was fighting the barbarians in defence of democracy and freedom; but it was not enough. It took something like Pearl Harbor to make the American nation realize and to direct its policy accordingly, that though this occurred thousands of miles away it was an attack on the American nation, the same as if it had happened in the heart of New York, for instance. From that time on they have been fighting on our side, although their hearts were always with us, from the beginning of the conflict in 1939, through to the end.
That is why I say that it was not of our own choosing that we participated, but our way of life was in danger of destruction. I know that the contribution we made was a necessary one, although costly, and every citizen of this country has reason to be well pleased with our part, although dolorous in it.
As I said before, from the standpoint of geography it could be considered that we were not only pacifist but also isolationist. All that disappeared, because we suddenly realized

Supply-External Affairs
that every citizen in the world was to a large extent his brother's keeper. That principle has been evident throughout two wars, and it is being just as strongly pressed forward at the present time to emphasize our ideology. Because for every man, every woman and every child in this world, we pray and-wish for peace. In the back of our minds, however, and in our private and public deliberations, we cannot get away from the fact that there is a skeleton in the nation's closet, the skeleton of war. If it were possible to have a plebiscite today among all the citizens of the world they would vote one hundred per cent for peace. But there must be a diabolical genie that finds it possible periodically to develop a situation which tries the patience of individuals and of nations.
I maintain that through the united nations organization, to which we properly belong, and to which Canada has made a great contribution, we are fulfilling a high and constructive purpose. If the voice of Canada is listened to and respected through its spokesman, the right hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), to whose eloquence we listened yesterday, and if the ideals he has set forth prevail in that worldwide forum at Lake Success and at Flushing Meadows, we do not need to despair.
We shall have to guard ourselves in our own actions and pronouncements; but, at the same time, anyone who attended the meetings of the united nations last fall will say that the voice of Canada is highly respected and eagerly listened to. The reason for that is simple. In proportion to our population we have done more than any other nation of the world. And there is more than that to the reason why Canada is so highly respected in the forum of the United Nations. After giving of our lives and our resources through our courageous participation in the last two world conflicts, we do not ask for any territorial aggrandizement. We do not wish any additional territory in the Atlantic or the Pacific, nor do we want even any rectification of our own borders, which in some parts are anomalous. If we wanted to be selfish we could be; we could ask for some reward for what we have done in the two great wars, to try to rectify our borders. But we do not w'ant to do that, because we do not want to carry on agitation in respect of any question which might bring friction, when peace deliberations are our chief concern.
Some doubt was expressed yesterday as to the respect in which the Canadian delegation is held. Let me repeat that the voice of Canada is highly respected. There are in these precincts some who were delegates of 5849-221J
or advisers for Canada in the united nations organization. They knew that the best way to win the hearts and minds of the people they met was to say that they were Canadians. Immediately there was a sympathetic response; they spoke their minds to us, and left no doubt as to how much they greatly admired the wonderful things that this relatively small nation has accomplished.
These are reasons for great pride. I have seen with my own eyes many nations asking the advice of and a lead from Canada, because they respect our views, and1 they respect the action we have taken in our own history. I appreciate sincerely the action taken by the government last fall when I was appointed a delegate to the united nations organization in New York. I know, as chairman of the committee on external affairs, that there were many occasions in the course of our deliberations in that committee on which I was agreeably surprised by the knowledge shown by members of the committee. I have in mind the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and others-I have no time to give all their names-who were sent as delegates, as alternate delegates or advisers to San Francisco, to London and to New York. They gave every evidence of having taken a constructive part in those deliberations. I can say that those who were appointed as delegates or alternates left a fine impression as Canadians and as men who understood both national and international situations.
Last fall, with others, I happened to be a delegate from Canada. All parties were represented. I do not wish to give the names, but I can say sincerely that each participated to the best of his ability, and I take pleasure in paying them this tribute. They worked there as Canadians, realizing fully the seriousness of the problems they were facing.
It is no sinecure to be appointed a delegate, an alternate or an adviser in united nations activities. I know that those from the press gallery who attended the last session of the united nations were unanimous in their report as to the activities of the Canadian delegation. They all agreed that we had worked-not eight hours a day, because there was no question of union hours in those circumstances, but from twelve to fourteen hours every day. We did it diligently and willingly. I do not hesitate to repeat that the hon. member for Peel, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and all others who participated in previous meetings and deliberations made a fine impression on all who had the benefit of
Supply-External Affairs

listening to and meeting them, because I often had occasion to observe their fine accomplishments.
It was a new experience for me as a parliamentarian, and one I appreciated. That was the first time in many years I have had the great honour of being a member of parliament that it had been possible for me to mix with high officials of the civil service-high officials in a very important department. I know I gained much by my contact with those career men.
I do not need to mention names, because Canada has been most fortunate in her high officials in the civil service, and particularly in the foreign affairs branch. I could mention the names of Mr. Pearson and Mr. McNaughton, and many others who are making it their life's work to serve in that important department.
It was inevitable that as members of parliament, we were not always familiar with the methods of members of the civil service, but I believe if there was any light friction or any personal reaction the parliamentarians benefited by having been in contact with those high government officials. I have no doubt, too, that the benefit was reciprocal, and that the members of the service benefited by being in contact with men who had taken part in the hurly-burly of active politics, men who must face all conditions, from day to day, and from year to year, and must be prepared to meet public opinion. The contact between those two groups was bound to be beneficial in our deliberations and actions at the united nations meetings.
If an invitation is extended to any member of parliament to appear before the united nations in any capacity, I would urge him to accept it. He will know in advance that he will have to work, but he will enjoy it, because there is a feeling of accomplishment. And we can say that so far as our consideration of external affairs is concerned, the matter has been taken practically out of politics, and this is certainly a great credit to our parliament.
I want to compliment the administration for the fine move they made when they found it possible to have every section of the House of Commons and the Senate represented at the united nations. It is in that way that the government gels closer co-operation and has better work done.
I wish to make a brief reference to our connection with the United States. I may be prejudiced, but I love the United States; I love the Americans, and this attitude does not lessen my love for Canada. The United States is a big exuberant country possessing 
all the qualities and all the faults of a young, strong giant. Some of us would seem to be afraid of the size of the United States and the important place that it has been projected into. In the course of this debate reference has been made to two worlds, to two philosophies, Soviet Russia in the east and the United States of America on the American continent.
One colossus, Russia, was built up during the last seven centuries. That country carries on today the same imperialistic expansionist idea which was evident back in the ninth century and which has been her continuous policy. Europe and the rest of the world has often suffered from that expansionism. Today the United States is the second so-called world colossus. But she did not reach that stature of her own volition or with any idea of expansion. It was not done by her own work.
I think I showed at the beginning of my remarks that the United States, on account of her prosperity, her high standard of living, her strength, her wonderful natural resources, her climatic conditions, her isolation from Asia and Europe by two great expanses of water, never in her wildest dreams imagined that she would become the leading nation of the world. She was compelled to do so. I think this is an example of the ways of Providence as shown through history, as applied to individuals as well as to nations.
What would have happened in 1914-18 if there had been no United States? That democratic nation did not want to expand her territory. She was satiated as far as territory was concerned; but she answered the call of democracy which she knew was in danger in Europe. There is no doubt that she helped to a great extent to save European civilization, yes the whole world. She applied that principle just as forcibly, if not more forcibly, in 1939. She did not want to participate in a second war. Her people did not want a second war. Why should they want war? They were prosperous; within their own borders they had the highest standard of living of any nation in the world. They were a creditor nation; they were on friendly terms with everyone. They did not want to expand their territory. The territory which she might have annexed unjustly in the past she gave back. She gave those people their freedom. This house should realize that that great nation did not become powerful of her own volition. It was simply because there were compelling circumstances, and she

Supply-External Affairs
realized the role she had to play at the cost of great sacrifices, in defending civilization and freedom.
Is it fair to make a comparison between the United States ideology and Russian Soviet ideology? Can a favourable comparison be made between communism and progressive capitalism? Such comparisons are not right, yet they are made time and again in this House of Commons. As I said a moment ago, the United States has all the exuberance of a fine, powerful youth. She knows her strength; she knows her ability to produce, but she is also magnanimous. I listened attentively last night to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He said that in the last war we repeated practically the same errors that we had made in the previous war, that there had been an expansion of territory, the annexation of new population and the use of slave labour in the mines and forests of the victorious nations. Surely that would not apply to the United States.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar seems to deplore the fact that the United States wants to have defensive outposts on the Pacific ocean. I for one am in favour of such outposts. The United States does not want them for purposes of aggrandizement. T ask hon. members to think of the situation of Australia and New Zealand during the last war. A large number of the courageous sons of those countries were fighting in North Africa when the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred. After Pparl Harbor their countries were in deadly danger. In those horrible hours after the Philippines were crushed, over two-thirds of the United States navy was destroyed. General MacArthur had to leave the Philippines as a vanquished general, his magnificent armed forces completely destroyed. He went to Australia, and there he was received with open arms. The people in Australia were a little impatient. They wanted to know what was going to happen when their sons were fighting in North Africa and their own shores were in deadly danger. These outposts are needed. If I have any voice in advising my government I hope that we never find it possible to criticize them.
What do they mean? They mean that there is a safeguard for the civilized world, for all free-loving people, for all free-loving nations the same as the British navy to a large extent was a safeguard for the peace-loving nations of the world. This is not the time and place to propound any theories about the great British empire which is not
disintegrating but is merely growing into the British commonwealth of nations.
1 repeat that these outposts are not for United States aggrandizement; they are for the safety of the whole world. They are not a threat to any nation that wants to remain peaceful. There was no idea o{ threat in the outpost of Pearl Harbor. When the attack on Pearl Harbor took place the Japanese ambassador, who was supposed to be talking peace to the United States government, must have known that the attack had been planned by the military caste in Japan. We do not want a repetition of that situation. Prevention is better than cure.
Supposing the United States had had no outpost at Pearl Harbor? Supposing that that horrible holocaust had occurred in San Francisco harbour? It might have proved a deadly blow to the United States. With the situation that we must of necessity face in the world today we must have these outposts. They are not for purposes of war; they are merely to tell the nations of the world that they are more than United States outposts, that they are world outposts which will stand guard for all nations which desire peace and freedom. Any nation that believes in peace will not have to worry. The navy, the marines, the army and the air force will be there for one purpose only, the maintenance of the peace of the world. The United States are telling all the peaceful nations to call on them if anyone dares to attack them unjustly, and the United States will answer that call immediately and effectively. That is my way of thinking.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I did not like to interrupt the hon. member, but if he will read my speech he will see that I was dealing with the Atlantic charter and I gave many other examples to show that it had been set aside at various conferences.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I accept gladly the hon. member's explanation.
Might I crave the indulgence of the house for just a few moments to say a word or two on the Palestine question, which I believe is of all importance?
I congratulate previous speakers on the moderation they have shown in treating this important subject and very difficult, problem. I should like to deal with it historically and to say first that all due credit must be given to generous Great Britain for its attitude during the last twenty-five years towards both 'the
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker. I am sure that all members of the house will join with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) in the fine words with which he closed his speech.
I am glad that my first word this afternoon is to congratulate the minister of external affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) on his comprehensive and constructive statement on our country's position in world affairs. I think it must be a source of considerable satisfaction to him that the statement he made yesterday has received so much support in this chamber that there is very little left to be said by way of criticism.
If I understand the government's policy as the minister stated it yesterday, and I believe I do, it is, stated briefly, to use the united

Supply-External Affairs
nations as the instrument for maintaining world security and advancing world welfare. However, the minister went further, and here I agree with him. If the united nations does not provide us with the security we seek, then we shall co-operate with other democratic nations to provide that security for us and for them. In my opinion that is a realistic policy; it is a policy with which I agree and with which I think every member of this group agrees. As a matter of fact I suppose it is forced on us by world events, by the shortcomings of the united nations.
It was my good fortune to attend the meetings of the general assembly of the united nations last fall. I say it was my good fortune, although the meeting itself was not very inspiring; but it did give me the opportunity of seeing the organization at work and to meet and hear and see world personalities in action. I am sorry that more members of parliament are not able to attend those meetings. As the hon. member for Cochrane said on his own behalf during the course of his speech, I wish to thank the government for giving me that opportunity and to say how much I appreciated working with the delegation and the members of the external affairs staff.
I believe 'the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who attended the general assembly as one of the 'parliamentary advisers, as I was, said that his advice was not accepted. I do not know whether mine was accepted or not, but I can say that I had every opportunity of giving it, and when I did not do so on any question that came up I was invariably asked for my opinion. No one could wish for anything more than that.
We all agree that the united nations has fallen far short of the hopes that we had for it when the charter was signed in 1945. That being so I think this afternoon I shall try to show what in my opinion is the reason for its failure. I hope I shall not be too critical, buit what I shall say is what has been impressed upon me, not only by (my attendance at the general assembly last fall but by my observation of international events since the end of world war II.
The charter of the united nations is its constitution. The signatories to that charter, if they signed it sincerely, accepted certain principles which would govern their conduct as members of the united nations. Probably the principles I am going to state would not be acceptable to everyone, but they appear to me to be the principles on which the organization of the united nations is based. The first principle is that -nations with different political and economic systems can co-operate for certain purposes. Even if those
purposes are limited, those signing the charter felt there could be co-operation; otherwise there was no point in signing it. The second principle is that no nation should interfere with the internal affairs of another -nation, and the third, that membership in the united nations meant the acceptance of compromise in the settlement of international disputes.
As I said, from my observations at the general assembly last fall, I became convinced that these principles, at least for certain members of the united nations, no -longer operate. There is now definitely a division in the united nations on political and economic lines. The Soviet bloc rejects those principles which democratic nations consider the foundation stone of their very existence; while the democratic countries reject those principles on which authoritarian states are based. It is from these fundamental, and I think irreconcilable, differences that conflicts in the united nations stem.
As it appeared to me at the general assembly, the delegates of the Soviet union made no attempt whatsoever to minimize differences or to find grounds for co-operation. Every effort was taken to emphasize differences and to prevent agreement, to use the united nations, as Mr. Vishinsky said in one of his speeches, as a propaganda forum. So long as that spirit exists on one side, the united nations, however useful it may be, will not do for the people of the world what we hoped it would do when it was formed.
On the other hand, I am convinced that the other nations, particularly the democratic countries, are anxious to co-operate with the Soviet union. There was always great joy when the Soviet delegates gave the slightest indication that there could be co-operation. If anyone thinks that the statement I have just made with reference to the attitude of the Soviet union is too sweeping I would draw attention to the excessive use of the veto by that nation in the security council, and to the boycott of general assembly decisions with which they did not agree. The decisions with which they did agree were never particularly important.
But there is a further indication of the unwillingness of the Soviet union to work with other nations. There are associated or affiliated with the united nations certain specialized agencies. I believe there are eleven of these altogether. As far as I can learn the Soviet union has representation on only four, on the world health organization, and on the international trade organization-and I believe that is only partial, being limited to the preparatory committee. They also have representation on the universal postal union and
Supply-External Affairs

on the international telecommunication union. The Soviet, union has no representatives on the international labour organization or on the food and agriculture organization, two organizations which are very important, if for no other reason, so far as the international labour organization is concerned, than that it brings together employers and employees from all parts of the world to discuss questions which are of importance to industrial workers. The food and agriculture organization is of the utmost importance today if we are to have international co-operation in increasing the food supply of the world. The Soviet union has no representation on UNESCO, on the international civil aviation organization, on the international bank, on the international monetary fund, or, as far as I know, on the international refugee organization.
I have mentioned this matter because these specialized agencies, along with the principal organs of the united nations, are the means by which the principles of the united nations charter can be made effective in the lives of the peoples of the world; and I would give it as my opinion that it is most important that all countries should be represented on them. This abstaining from membership in these agencies can only mean that the Soviet union does not believe in co-operation among the peoples of the world. As I said before, until there is a change in that attitude the united nations organization will not be the force in world affairs that we had hoped it would be.
As long as there is any hope, however, that the united nations organization can be of use, we must do everything possible to keep it in existence, even if we are disappointed with its progress. It is an inspiring ideal, and some day it may work. I agree with the hon. member for Cochrane that even if it only provides a forum for the discussion of world problems it is serving a useful purpose. If such is the case I hope the government will give it every support, and I am sure they will.
I come now to the other part of the government's policy, that if we cannot have all the nations of the world in one organization, we must do what sensible people always do when they cannot have all they want, namely, do the next best thing. The next best thing in this case, I think, is the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Externa! Affairs of co-operation with the democratic countries of western Europe. Here I should like to express publicly my own appreciation of the action of the United States in providing the funds for the European recovery program. This is economic aid given by one country to other countries on a scale never

before dreamed of. As I said, I wish to express my own appreciation of that generosity.
The motives of the United States in making this aid available have been questioned. But whatever the motives, can anyone in his senses object to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and putting into the hands of the war-tortured people of Europe the means by which they can rebuild their industries and restore their dignity? I cannot understand, on the part of anyone who believes in human welfare, objection to a program of that kind. It is unfortunate and even deplorable that Soviet Russia did not allow the countries of eastern Europe to participate in this recovery program. But I hope that the benefits of the European recovery program will seep into eastern Europe, as I am convinced they will, and that these countries will benefit from the operations of the program. It would have been much more pleasant and much better for the people of the world if this program had been accepted in all the countries of Europe on the basis on which it was offered.
A great deal has been said during the session, and particularly yesterday, about the dangers of communism and the appeal it had to many people in various parts of the world. I think we should try to understand why it is that people will accept the solution of communist revolution for their problems. I feel that sometimes in this house, because of our own comfortable position, we do not appreciate the outlook of millions of people in other lands who have never known anything but hunger and privation. 'Let us just remember that in almost all countries up to the present, with perhaps the exception of the North American countries, only a small group at the top were ever economically secure, and consequently politically secure; because a person who is not economically secure cannot be either politically secure or politically free. For the great masses of people in all countries the important thing in their lives is bread. Hungry people are always thinking of things to eat. Until we are able to convince them that democracy will give them not only the opportunity to vote but also the opportunity to eat, they will fall for slogans such as "the land for the peasants" and "the factories for the workers," and will always, in my opinion, lose out as well. That is what we must do today. We must not only give the people political freedom and political democracy; we must make sure that with our joint co-operation they will also have bread.

Supply-External Affairs
Both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Stanstead referred to the political changes which have come about in our international relations during the last three or four decades. These changes have been great, so great indeed that foreign relations are no longer the exclusive concern of foreign ministers and their diplomatic staffs. Today our international affairs reach down to the farmer on the land, the miner in the mine and the industrial worker in the factory. That is so because of the importance of production in our international affairs. In a word, international relations today are no longer a question of the manoeuvring by politicians and diplomats to have their country come out on the long end of international deals. International relations are becoming more and more a matter of co-operation in the- improving of human welfare and human security.
We in Canada therefore will have to see to it that our farmers understand the part their production plays in maintaining world peace. The miners of Great Britain will have to understand the part they play in providing coal for Europe's needs; and workers in the factories all over the world must be shown that they, too, are important in maintaining peace in this new world in which we find ourselves.
Last winter one of the Ottawa newspapers ran a series of articles condensing the memoirs of Mr. Cordell Hull. I was interested to note what Mr. Hull had to say about his fight for freer trade and the lowering of tariff barriers by the United States, and what he felt was the part played by economic factors in our relations with other countries. I should like to read briefly from one of those articles. He said:
Over and -above the economic side of our foreign policy, but closely tied in with it, I believed, hung the political side. To me it seemed virtually impossible to develop friendly relations with other nations in the political sphere as long as we provoked' their animosity in the economic sphere. How could we promote peace with them while waging war on them commercially? When I came into the state department I found in the department files no fewer than thirty-four formal and emphatic diplomatic protests presented by as many nations following the passage of the Smoot-Hawley high tariff act. Nor had their protests been confined to words. Goaded by what they regarded as almost an embargo keeping out their exports to the United' States, they retaliated in kind.
If we are to have peace in the world we should remember certain things today. The industrial productive potential of the world is enormous, indeed so enormous that, given
a few years of peace, it will be more than sufficient to meet the needs of a world at peace. When we are advocating programs of co-operation we must remember that these must not be short-term programs but programs that are permanent, because never again, if we want to avoid war, can we go back to the cutthroat competition of the pre-war years. Again, there will have to be considerable national and international planning; for if our industrial capacity is -more than sufficient to meet the needs of the world, our agricultural or food producing capacity, taking the world as a whole, is far short of being able to provide the peoples of the world with a satisfactory and sufficient diet.
These are matters we should try to always keep in mind when discussing our foreign relations, because hunger in any country is a danger to every country.
I wish to conclude with a brief comment on a statement made by the minister toward the end of his address, namely, that the burden of maintaining peace will not be easy. I hope the minister is wrong. Very likely he is right. But however hard it may be to maintain peace, it will be easier than fighting another war; consequently we should be prepared to make whatever sacrifices are required to maintain peace.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on external affairs, together with debates on the same subject on other occasions, has been kept on an extremely high level, as is proper when we are discussing foreign relations; to such a question the House of Commons and the public generally would be expected to take that kind of approach. The Secretary' of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) opened the debate with an exhaustive analysis of Canada's present position in world affairs, introducing the discussion, in his usual way, on a plane we would all wish to follow in succeeding addresses.
I have always felt that we must look for agreement, rather than division, as far as the political parties in Canada are concerned, on the subject of external affairs. I believe that is what the public of Canada want and what the parliament of Canada demands. Whatever differences we may have in other ways, we must see that as far as humanly possible we achieve a single voice in the councils of the world. Therefore those of us in this house who from time to time have had the privilege and honour of attending international conferences have striven to follow that course conscientiously and consistently, and I hope that will continue to be the policy of all political parties in this country.
Supply-External Affairs

The cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy must be of course the achievement of a just, permanent and lasting peace; because after all there is nothing more valuable, more desirable for the people of Canada or any other peace-loving country. This national objective must be pursued courageously and relentlessly. We must not accept the inevitability of a third world war. This is a defeatist attitude which no such nation as ours, vigorous as we are from coast to coast, should adopt. We must not admit that we cannot at least play our part in seeing to it that a world war, which in many quarters is regarded as inevitable, shall be avoided. We must fight to make sure that the inevitability of world war III shall not be realized.
War is not inevitable. But so far as this country is concerned, it is no longer a choice between peace and war. It more closely resembles a choice between peace and the mass obliteration of mankind.
On the other hand this central objective to which I have referred must not be allowed entirely to dull the keen edge of opposition in the House of Commons, although we must always be careful to make sure that that opposition is completely and thoroughly constructive, and that in foreign affairs the linen we may have to wash is washed right here, and not in the councils of the world.
Those are points which all of us want to keep in mind, and which I shall have before me in my observations today. Let me say that the government's policy in the past, so far as international affairs are concerned, has too often been characterized, if I may say so- and in a critical vein now-by what I think is a shocking tendency to keep in the vest pockets of the ministry the important reasons apd details leading up to the formulation of policy, and also in some instances even the policy itself.
The place to make foreign policy for the Canadian people is not solely in the east block of these parliament buildings, not solely within the confines of cabinet council, not in other world capitals. If peace is to be permanent it must be a people's peace. And in the light of that fundamental doctrine, a people's peace must of course be made by the people themselves. The foreign policy of this country should be made in the House of Commons and the Senate, in the parliament of this dominion.
But what have we been witnessing in recent times?-and it was worse perhaps in earlier days. In 1946 only three out of 119 sitting days of parliament were given over to the discussion of external affairs. In 1947 only five and a half out of 115 sitting days were taken for the discussion of that subject. And this 
year, 1948, it is only on the seventy-third or seventy-fourth day of the session that we have now for the first time reached a debate on external affairs.
More than that, a full-itime ministry of external affairs came only after great pressure from the opposition. The house committee on external affairs was set up only after similar pressure from this side of the house. No definite time is set aside from week to week for the discussion of foreign relations, despite the fact that the house committee on external affairs in 1946 recommended to the House of Commons that there should be such a definite period, and the house concurred unanimously in that recommendation. But nothing has been done about it.
In 1947 we had to go to the extent of moving to adjourn the house in order to discuss whether or not this country was being given fair treatment in the matter of participation in the peace treaties for Austria and Germany. Furthermore, there were in 1946 some ninety-eight international gatherings at which Canada was officially represented, and there were more in 1947. But in only one instance last year was there multiple-party representation. I am not complaining so much about that. But let us not go away with the idea that all political parties in the House of Commons have a real say in foreign policy as from time to time it is formulated. I bring to the attention of the house these facts because in my opinion the Department of External Affairs, good as it may be-and I am not one who would seek to break it down-is not divine. It is human; it makes mistakes, and I fancy it makes just as many as most of us do. It is the duty of the opposition to point up those mistakes so that the department and the minister may correct them in the days ahead.
One of those mistakes is this. In the representation of this country' at international gatherings, I wonder if there is any part of our population which believes that it has a greater stake in peace than do the womenfolk. In the general assembly, and in other places where international gatherings have been held, I have asked myself this question: Where are the womenfolk of the world? True, at San Francisco we did have representation of womenfolk in Canada-exceptionally good representation-in the person of Mrs. Cassel-man, who formerly represented the constituency of Edmonton East. But since that time where have we gone so far as representation of women is concerned?
Let me point out to the Department of External Affairs that one of the things we should do is to see to it that more Canadian


[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
women have the opportunity to express their views in respect of a matter which, I think, is of greater interest to them than to any other part of our population. It is little short of a scandal, if I may say so, that we have not had more women take part in our international gatherings. I believe that if peace were placed more in the hands of the women of the world, it might be more permanent.
I wish to deal somewhat critically-I fancy the minister may feel I am too critical-with some of the matters I mentioned at the outset. As was pointed out by one of the speakers yesterday, we were at one time placed in an embarrassing position in connection with the matter of oil sanctions against Italy. That was about twelve years ago. I sat in the House of Commons and heard the debate which took place at that time. But whatever the pros and cons may have been, it was an embarrassing and humiliating experience, not only for us but for other nations as well- because in these matters we have been travelling in fairly prominent company.
So far as the Palestine situation is concerned-and I shall not deal with it at length -our position, if I may say so, has been one of advancing, retreating, back-filling, backtracking and slowing up. Canada has more than ordinary responsibility for that policy because of her position in the initiation of the plan itself. We have come out of that with something less than a completely unsoiled reputation as a nation in diplomatic affairs.
In addition to that, our performance in the Korean situation has given us a somewhat juvenile diplomatic reputation. I make these suggestions now because I do not think anyone wmuld wish to make them except with the idea that somebody should point out that there are corrections to be. made, that there are reforms in the Department of External Affairs that ought to be recommended on the floor of this house.	[DOT]
I come now to another matter. During this debate we have heard1 the question raised in respect to our relations with the great United States of America. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) has given much, and he has much to give, with respect to the question of his contribution to our external affairs policy and his reputation in the gatherings of the world. I was proud of what he said, just as I am always proud of the way in which he represents us from time to time. I was glad to hear him put in a good w-ord for the United States of America.
I am not one who is ashamed to stand1 up in this house and say that I am proud of the 5849-222J
friend we have to the south on this North American continent. I think that what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) said was capable of the interpretation which was put on it a few moments ago by the hon. member for Cochrane. As I read what he said, and as I heard what he said, I think there was just a little tendency to balance off, on the one hand, some of the bad thing that Russia had done and then balance off, on the other hand, some of the bad things the United States had done. I am not going to balance today. I say to you that while we must not be dominated by Washington- Washington does not want to dominate us-we must not fail to realize the necessity of friendly collaboration with the republic to the south. We cannot adopt any bull-in-the-china-shop diplomacy with respect to our great friend to the south. Let us be realistic in our arrangements and our dealings with them from time to time.
We must not, so far as this parliament or this government or this people is concerned, be confused' as to who are our real friends in a critical, dangerous and uncertain world. The fact that a big friend and ourselves find each other going in the same direction on the international highway should not tempt us to make a detour so that we can boast of our complete detachment. On the other hand Canadians must avoid being hitchhikers on the highway of international affairs. We must recognize our friends because, as in the case of individuals, in international matters our friends mean much to us. They mean much to our safety, they mean much to our security, they mean much to the peaceful days that we hope will follow these cloudy times.
There is one other matter I want to bring up, if I may; I refer to the question of commitments. This is one of the difficult things with which nations have to deal. Unless the public is ready to support every commitment that a nation or its representatives may make from time to time in international affairs, if those commitments have only a fragile backing at home, then I think it is only fair to say that perhaps those commitments had better not be made at all. Commitments which you know you cannot carry out or which you are uncertain you can carry out should not be made in the original instance.
Canada has to make sure that she does not get the reputation of having a bark that is worse than her bite in the international show. That is one of the things we have to consider carefully. In the main I think we can agree with the policy enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There are some things perhaps which one would want to shade
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
here or perhaps colour there. Much of the speech dealt with things which are fairly common knowledge to the people of Canada; nevertheless, presented as they were by the minister, they carried considerable weight in the house and the country.
The government should not allow this debate to conclude without the collateral or complementary policy being announced by the Department of National Defence. We have been told where we stand; we were told yesterday how we got there, but we have not been told where we go from here and what kind of policy will be adopted in order to get there. I think the government must give us an answer. They have told us how we got there. To tell us where we are is not sufficient without indicating what the Department of' National Defence is going to do in order to make deeds accompany the government's words.
Some reference was made yesterday to the western European union. I am sorry I have not the exact clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press, but I have a copy here of what they had to say about this. That paper has a reputation for the close study it makes of external affairs. They say:
In the event of conflict, will United States troops fight with them? Truman didn't say so. We haven't said so. Russia still does not know whether the free world would instantly unite to resist aggression, and in two world wars it was this uncertainty, this prospect of disunity among intended victims that encouraged- the aggressor to gamble on an easy victory.
In discussing Palestine that paper went further and said:
Both the commission and the assembly violated the first rule of statesmanship, that policy should never be allowed to outrun resources.
So far as this party is concerned, we approve what has been said with respect to supporting the western union. In addition we should do some international fire-ranging in places where small conflagrations break out, because that will be cheaper in the long run than waiting until the fire gets out of control. Government policy with respect to that should be carefully considered.
I want to go one step further and indicate that despite the semi-political paralysis of the united nations, and despite the fact, as was so clearly put by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) a few moments ago, that it has failed to live up to the glamorous expectations of San Francisco, nations must not cease trying to find some effective collective formula of lasting peace so that the privations, suffering, distress and death
TMr. Graydon.]
. which war has brought to millions of families shall not have been made in vain.
What is the situation now? Soviet foreign policy is a definite and a positive program. While we along with Russia were fighting a war, Russia on its own was blue-printing a * Eurasian peace. By this peace Russia has brought under her dominion Manchuria and part of Korea in the east and a number of countries, ranging from the Baltic to the Adriatic, in the west. At Greece and the Dardanelles Anglo-American diplomacy has made a definite stand. All this additional territory is under Russian domination because of the strength and strategic position of Russian armed forces-and I underline "Russian armed forces".
How far has the world gone down the road of gradually abandoning most of the ideals stated in the Atlantic charter and what were the causes that led us to our present position? Was not our early policy of virtually complete surrender to the demands of one nation, namely Russia, a major cause? Has Canada ever asked why Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are not entitled under the Atlantic charter to have their sovereign rights and self-government restored? Is the virtual occupation of large sections of the Baltic-German and Polish territory and the effective domination by force of Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and a large portion of Manchuria consistent with our announced purpose in the Atlantic charter? Beyond this extended Soviet empire the Soviets operate by the familiar fifth-column methods employed by dictator states. Clearly this continent becomes the effective centre of resistance to Soviet expansion.
It is even more absurd now to talk of hemispheric isolation than it was formerly to talk of North American isolation. The core of resistance will be the British commonwealth and empire, the United States, and such other countries as are able to escape Soviet absorption in the initial stages of a world war. Articles 51 and 52 of the united nations agreement open the door to the new diplomacy to which we in Canada will doubtless subscribe in some concrete way in due course.
An important example of the collective security this article envisages is to be found in the mutual assistance pact made on March 17 last. I so well remember, as do so many of us who were at the San Francisco conference, the discussions which took place and the long hours we spent with respect to the inclusion of those articles in the San Francisco charter. Little did I think in any event-perhaps some were more far-sighted than I-that in another three years we would be relying on articles 51

Supply-External Affairs
and 52 as one of the means by which free nations would gather together in the hope of stopping the aggression which has been so noticeable of late. In connection with that mutual assistance pact the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in this house on the day it was signed; and this was repeated yesterday but not extended by the minister of external affairs:
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.
It is important that this parliament should know just precisely what the Prime Minister means by those words. This diplomatic language does not mean much to the average man on the street. It is still more important that the government of Soviet Russia should know what he means. The Prime Minister should speak boldly and tell our people what the score is in that connection, and I am quite sure that at an appropriate time he will.
Had the dictators been given any substantial reason to believe in days gone by that there were mighty forces in the free world that would rise against them, they might have hesitated before launching the last world war. A policy of firmness means likely peace. A policy of hesitation and infirmity means possible war.
Canada's position should be made clear and her armed services-I want to emphasize this -should bear a reasonable relationship to our population and economic strength. It may well be dangerous in the extreme for us to have let our forces remain at something less than 35,000 altogether. If Russian aggression is halted-and there is every reason to hope that it can be-there still remains the need to remain firm and strong so that an effective role can be played, having regard to our resources, in maintaining peace.
I now come to' another subject, and that is 1he British commonwealth of nations and the empire. In the maze of international developments, Canada must, more than ever before, recognize the vital, long-range importance of intensifying our interest and vigorously promoting the building of a more influential and powerful British comity of nations. Canada, as the senior dominion, has a challenge and an opportunity of leadership which she must exercise. There is every prospect that in the days which lie ahead, be they near or far, this Canada of ours will not be just a part and a unit of the great British commonwealth of nations and empire but will become the very centre and core of that great British commonwealth and empire, and we must chart our course with that definite possibility in mind.
The present international crisis has inevitably thrown our powerful neighbour to the south and ourselves together in a way unparalleled in our history. That being so, our independence and our general position in world affairs will be enhanced and strengthened if our relationships with the units of the commonwealth are proportionately strengthened at the same time, and may I add that that will be underlined by the normal wishes and desires of that great republic to the south as well as of our own. The commonwealth, it stands to reason, is stronger as a group than the units can ever be separately, and stronger, too, in our dealings with other countries. There is nothing incongruous between the build'ingi up of our relationship with the United States and other freedom-loving countries in the world, and the simultaneous strengthening of our commonwealth position at the same time. From our own point of view and our own security and independence they must go hand in hand.
I come to one other suggestion. We have talked from time to time about not desiring to make the commonwealth too rigid. I have always held strong views with respect to that. As the minister of external affairs so very well said yesterday, this commonwealth cannot be static. No such growing and developing organism could ever be static or still, and when she is developing she should not have to do it in a strait-jacket. That I think is the answer so far as the commonwealth and the empire are concerned. We do not want the kind of ties which snap when growth and development take place. What we want is the kind of ties of sentiment and desire and patriotism which, as the bonds become looser, become even tighter in the process.
One thing that I think we can all readily agree upon as being one of the great unifying influences in the commonwealth and empire is that of the crown, Their Majesties the King and Queen. Let us not forget that the visit of Their Majesties to this country in 1939 had a compelling effect upon the whole outlook of this nation. Reports from the Union of South Africa which reach us bear a similar tale. Plans are now being made for the royal family to visit Australia and New Zealand. This may be regarded as a bridgehead for a future development which I should like to suggest to the house in all seriousness. His Majesty is king of Canada as he is king of all the other sovereign states within the commonwealth and empire. In my opinion Their Majesties, if the physical strain is not too much, should divide their time on some
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
reasonable basis so that every unit of the commonwealth may have a more equal share of Their Majesties' time and help. It would have a salutary effect upon commonwealth and empire unity; it would take the place of many of the suggestions which have been made from time to time to bring -the empire closer together; it would have a stirring effect upon the unity of the various nations, to which they went, and would indicate the importance of the various nations of the commonwealth which nothing else can do, because the commonwealth's greatest, sentimental unifier today is the crowned head of that commonwealth and empire.
As I pass along I want to say a word with respect to the united nations organization. It takes no professional observer to gain the inescapable impression that the public has lost a great deal of its confidence in the once glamorously launched united nations. The two complementary features of this great venture in peace, that of making and of enforcing decisions, once they have been made, -have not turned out as people were lead to believe and expect. There has been plenty of discussion

perhaps too much-plenty of propaganda, particularly from one totalitarian state, and the assembly in many instances turned out -to be a sounding-board for conflicting ideologies, with little seeming effort really to get down to brass tacks on peace and do something -about it.
M-ay I pause to say this. One of the things I was afraid of-and I mentioned it in this house -at the very beginning of our discussions when the united nations was set up-is this. I was afraid that somehow or another, unless the heads of the nations all over -the world, and particularly the heads of the great and major -powers once in a while would -put in an appearance at the united nations organization general -assembly or security council, it might easily develop into a kiffd of debating society, which in many instances it has, because never since the united nations organization has been set up has there been any meeting of the supreme heads of all the nations at any united nations organization gathering. I think that is a -pity. 1 admit that, so far as our own country is concerned, our Prime Minister did not sin in that regard, -but in many other instances that is so, and regrettable.
The security council, that great protective lion which we were told would show every nation of the world that world forces were there to ensure that a threat would stop as a threat and not develop into a war, has suffered almost from its beginning from sleeping sickness and political -paralysis. It

has proven to be dangerous to have any organization which makes decisions and then fails to enlist sufficient power to carry them out. What good is a court in our land which makes decisions and has nobody to carry them out once they have been made? Better not to have any court; perhaps it would be better not to have a judgment because the two go hand in hand.
Instead of a world police force, the -best that has been proposed so far is just a sort of international truancy brigade which would take care of some little fellows in the world. But what good is it to take care of the little fellows? The little fellows do not start and maintain a world war. You must have something bigger and greater than that. I must say this; and I am glad the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is in his seat. Whatever may be said with respect to the united nations organization, in the social and economic field not quite the same extensive or intensive criticism of the organization's work can be made. Some progress and development have actually taken place there, and I want to pay tribute where tribute is due.
In concluding my remarks with respect to the united nations organization, I have this suggestion to make. This country, along with those of our friends who are interested, should take the lead at once to shake up and reform this whole united nations organization and call for a clarification of its objectives and aims, and then, having defined them, proceed to call for a simplification of the complicated and clumsy machinery which creaks and groans under its own weight in international affairs. In my opinion the united nations organization has become all clogged up; it is too top-heavy and is dealing from time to time with other things that are not helping peace or helping to re-establish its position in public confidence. The re-establishment of public confidence in the united nations is a "must" if we are to continue to participate in it. I do not think it is too late to do that. If we let it run on too long we may find that we are in a position where it is "too little and too late" in all that we do.
In my closing remarks I wish to say this, Mr. Speaker. I believe that fifth column international politics made the united nations unworkable, because it is not to be expected that co-operation and wholesome understanding can result when you know that the man sitting across from you at the international table may be directly or indirectly a party to setting fire to your home while

Supply-External Affairs
you are away. That is putting it pretty plainly and simply; but as a matter of fact, it is a simple problem and I think it deserves simple language. I must confess that nothing made my blood boil quite so much since I entered public life many years ago as to hear read in this House of Commons the words of a man who was in public service who said that he owed a higher loyalty to some country other than the Dominion of Canada. I never got over that. That is a thing that has seared into my soul and will remain there as long as I live. I cannot have regard for people who have opinions such as that.
I want to say this as well; and this is rather tough language, perhaps, but I think I must say it. The Soviet union and the international communists who are trying to infiltrate into every part of the world, so far as Canada is concerned, yes, and other countries as well, have behaved like less than exemplary neighbours, and that kind of neighbour never built a good community, whether it was a world community or otherwise. I said it when I made a speech on external affairs last year and I repeat it now. Many of us who lived on the farm can look back. We knew what constituted a good neighbour. The good neighbour was the chap who lived next door to you and came to your help when you were in trouble and, when you were in distress, was always there to lend a kindly hand. He would not be regarded as a very good neighbour who from time to time used the hired man on your farm, if you like, to try to change your whole order of business and who interfered with your household as well. That is not neighbourliness. Therefore I say to you, sir, that while the espionage trials told only part of the story in Canada, it was sufficient to demonstrate that we must keep a close eye on a nation, even though officially friendly and in good standing, which has proven-and I am sorry to say this-to have been an international porch climber and a diplomatic Peeping Tom. Those are strong words, but I mean them because I consider them appropriate in the circumstances.
Because of that, I want to make this new suggestion. In view of the fact that there is a eominform, that there is an international movement which has its headquarters in the Kremlin in Moscow, reaching its long fingers into the various governments and into the very fabric of society in the nations of the world, while that is going on, we must review the rules which were formerly made with respect to the diplomatic exchange of representatives between nations. I am not.
satisfied to allow the present system to continue unchanged. I think the temptation, shall I say, is too great where there are in a nation representatives of an ideology which is so completely different from ours and which is, in addition, so aggressive and wants to change our system to theirs. When there is an embassy here and when there are supporters of that particular policy abroad in our own country, the temptation becomes too great. Because of that temptation, I think in the interests of safety we should alter the rules with respect to our diplomatic representation exchanges.
Nations are spending billions upon billions to see that the aggressive communist offensive shall be stopped in its tracks outside our territorial limits, and rightly so. But is it any more of a danger 2.000 miles away than it is right here at home? The two are linked up together, and it is time for this government, this parliament and our people to "pull up their socks", to use the common parlance of the street, and to bring in legislation that will put communism and communists within our own population in a position where they will not just be martyrs ready to attract sympathetic and sentimental support from the unwary, but where they wrill be rendered impotent to undermine our way of life.
May I just say one thing to you at this point, Mr. Speaker, at the expense of another moment of my time? Let us not be too hard on the people who have been from time to time among that class of our unwary citizens. Circumstances sometimes dictate strange moves. But I want to see to it that the core which is responsible for enlisting fellow travellers in Canada shall, once and for all, be rendered powerless to continue their work, because those who are at the core of such a movement deserve little from their fellow-Canadians. They should get what they deserve before it is too late for straight-thinking, patriotic Canadians to do it.
I know my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, but I am nearly through and would appreciate being allowed to finish.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Gordon Graydon: I would not drive communism underground. It is there now. It has been operating in the cellars of Canada for years. I would legislate, if possible, to dig it out of the subterranean caverns of this country and send its members, its fellow travellers and all who profess to like other countries' way of life better than ours, to places where they will feel at home and where we shall feel safer when they are gone. Let us not be optimistic ostriches when the red menace is all about u?
Supply-External Affairs

The days of Pollyanna are not appropriate when these people are among us. There comes a time when you have to fight fire with fire.
Many legislative suggestions have been made with the object of dealing with the communistic cancer in Canada, all of them put forward in perfectly good faith. One may perhaps sum up the situation in the simple words I heard a farmer use not so long ago. He was looking at the question of communism quite simply. He said of the communists, "I do not know whether we should outlaw them, 'inlaw' them, or what we should do. I am not a lawyer. All I know is that what I want to do is to get rid of them". I think that sums up the general opinion of the ordinary people across Canada with respect to what they regard as the necessary thing.
I should like to see the dominion and provincial attomeys-general sit down around a common table at once-surely they can get along for that length of time-and draft something that will, within our concepts-and I emphasize that phrase, "within our concepts" -and our principles of democracy, put big, shiny, sharp, white teeth into our Canadian laws which will tell all fifth columnists of the communist movement in Canada, in unmistakable language, that they have only three choices from now on: (a) go to that economic and political paradise which they say exists behind the iron curtain, and stay there; (b) be dealt with in the courts of our land and take the consequences; or (c) drop this whole dangerous, unfair, domestic offensive and become good Canadian citizens again. The latter is what I hope and trust will eventually take place; because if trouble arises on the international front-and God forbid that we shall ever see it again-we cannot afford to have people lighting fires at our back door while we are extinguishing them at the front.
We should concentrate on maintaining the liberty and freedom of the loyal citizens of Canada. We must remember that the loyal citizens of Canada have some rights. We ought to see to it that their safety and that of their families is ensured, and that they are put first in our consideration.
In closing, may I say that there are three fronts upon which the advance of communism must be met and defeated: on the international front where Russia and her allies must be eventually told where the danger line is drawn; on the fifth-column front in our own land where the law must have sufficient teeth to deal with those who seem to know no other language than force itself; and on the home

political and economic front which, in the final analysis, is the one I regard as being the most vital of all.
A defeat for Russia on the war front or the dealing with communist sympathizers at home still falls far short of ending the communistic menace to the world. This nation and her peoples-this has been said often before, but I say it again because I believe it wholeheartedly and with all the conviction I can summon to my command-must improve immensely our democratic methods and raise the standards of our way of life, so that the onlooking millions of sceptical-and I underline and underscore the word "sceptical"- world spectators, who are making up their minds right now which way to go, will see clearly that that keystone in the arch of world peace-economic and social justice for the mass of our people-can best be secured and preserved under a system where the maximum of freedom of the individual exists along with the minimum of state regimentation and control-a freedom that communism denies; a freedom that democracy gives.
The teeming millions of the world's masses are unmistakably on the march for a better, fuller and more abundant life. They are going to either communism or democracy to get it; but I want to say to my colleagues in the House of Commons that wherever they go to get it, make no mistake, they are going to get it. Armed force alone will not settle the question. Ideological crusades are not blocked by the forces of even modem warfare. The march goes on, not alone in the fields of Europe and Asia but in the minds of men all over the world. The march ultimately can be arrested only when we demonstrate to them that behind this temporary face of force-and I repeat, this temporary face of force-lie the benevolent, kindly heart and hand of a democratic people which genuinely desires to see a square deal for all; and when we say "all" we mean exactly what we say.
That way, Mr. Speaker, lies progress. That way lies prosperity. That way lies security. That way lies peace.


Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house are particularly happy because of the strong stand taken in this chamber yesterday afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) against communism and communist activities throughout the world. We were also pleased to see the leaders and spokesmen of the opposition parties throw their spontaneous support behind the minister's statement of government policy with respect to

Sup-ply-External Affairs
foreign affairs, and more especially in regard to the official announcement of Canadian support for the collective security pact among the western democracies within the framework of the united nations. The participation in this debate of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was also a valuable contribution; and of course I am perfectly satisfied that no part of his address was intentionally designed to be used as propaganda in the coming Ontario election.
I do not wish to take much of the time of this house in participating in this important debate. I am far from pretending to be an expert in these complicated matters of international relations; nevertheless I should be quite satisfied with myself if I could succeed in expressing a few ideas representative of some of the points of view of the man on the street, who, in the last analysis, is the one who pays the price for war and the one who is called upon to pay the price for peace.
We learn from history that from time immemorial generations of men of different racial origins in all countries of the world have sought methods of preserving peace. For thousands of years nations have brought their wars to an end by the signing of treaties designed by men with the object of establishing permanent if not perpetual peace. Yet up to our time war has never been abolished as a means of settling international disputes and differences between nations. We participated in the first world war on the assumption that afterwards the world was to enjoy an unlimited period of peace. Tire first world war did not achieve the objective of establishing a lasting peace. During the greatest struggle of all time, world war II, which was imposed upon the free democracies of the world, we were told repeatedly that this time everything would be settled forever. It did not settle anything. At least in 1918, at the close of the first world war, the world seemed ready for peace. Today we find such a state of confusion in international relations that one must reach the conclusion that the nations of the world seem ready neither for war nor for peace.
From the point of view of a multitude of Canadians, lasting peace seems further away at this moment than at any time since the close of hostilities; and a great many think it is beyond our grasp. We live in an atmosphere of instability, insincerity and insecurity. Obviously the fault lies somewhere. But it is no contribution to the solution of this crucial problem merely to say that the fault lies with the other power, with the other country,
and let ourselves drift into the unknown without attempting to do something to remedy the situation.
Owing to its strategic position and its economic importance, our country of Canada can play a greater part in the establishment of lasting peace, and has as much responsibility, as, if not more, for pursuing that objective and aim, than most countries of the world. We stand here in the centre of a great struggle. In one way we are the shock absorbers of a gigantic clash between two ideologies, and perhaps I might add, between two shapes of imperialism. There is a war, a cold war, now being fought on ideological grounds. Let us admit to ourselves that the two great goals at the opposite ends of those grounds are imperialism. They belong to the U.S.S.R. team, we belong to the British-American team.
There are some who advocate the suppression of communism by waging another world war. This suggestion finds scores of sympathizers, even in the province of Quebec. I feel that this is entirely wrong, and for various reasons which seem obvious, one of the reasons being that no philosophy has ever been seized and destroyed by war. One cannot destroy a philosophy; one cannot destroy a single idea in this world by the use of bullets; and it will never be done even by the contribution of the frightful power of atomic bombs.
The only possible cure for the discontent found amongst people living under our system of democracy, here in Canada or outside in the world, is to make this democratic way of life work so well that its superiority cannot be challenged, either here in Canada or in any other democratic nation. The only way an idea can be killed is to bring along a better idea.
We have here in Canada political freedom and an immense heritage of wealth. Let us first secure for our country as a whole, and for the people living within the boundaries of this nation, a full measure of economic freedom, as well as a full measure of social security. Second, let us contribute our full share, in order to spread, through our moral and material assistance, this priceless economic freedom and social security to the other nations of the world, which are in such need of our Christian, charitable help, in this crucial period of the history of mankind.
We have paid a terrible price through our participation in two great world wars. We have just paid the price for a most devastating total war. That should be enough. Unless we are ready to take the inconceivable risk of
Supply-External Affairs

diving blindly into a third world war, which could be a final catastrophe engulfing the whole world, with frightening consequences, let us now be prepared to pay the price for a total peace.
Let us have the courage to tell that story to our constituents, to our own people; and let us have enough brains to talk less about the possibility of participating in a third world war, as a means of destroying communism and restoring a Christian order of charity and justice throughout the world.
Obviously, between the ideologies of Soviet Russia and those of the United States and of the British commonwealth, there is just as great a gulf as existed in 1939 between the allied nations and Hitler's Germany.
But until all countries learn that each nation must be allowed to have, without outside pressure, the ideology it likes best, there can be only very much restricted common ground for the discussion and solution of other problems. We fear that the communist states have not yet learned this; and that is precisely what makes the present position of the world so tragic.
Owing to these exceptionally sad circumstances, and in order to help avoiding a third world war and to promote an enduring peace, we must at all costs, along with the other peace-loving free democracies of the world, be united behind policies designed to promote our own common interest and to safeguard their security as well as our own.
Furthermore, in the councils of the nations we must throw all our weight behind the idea that no peace can be lasting, unless it is established on the natural rights of all countries of the world to equal economic opportunity, whether that country be France, China, Italy, Spain or even Germany.
So long as any one nation, whether it be the United States or Russia, possesses a monopoly over natural resources or raw materials which are needed by all nations, there can be no sound basis for a world order based on justice and on peace. So as Canadians let us start out this peace planning properly, by first establishing, in as great measure as we can, economic freedom and social security for the benefit of our own people, and, second, by contributing our share to bring about the fullest collaboration between all peace-loving free nations of the world. Let us do this to help toward the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all countries, in order to improve the standard of living conditions, national and individual economic advancement and social justice, for all people of all nations.

Another world war, fought with atomic power and modern war equipment, can only mean almost entire destruction of our present civilization. That is the threat which lies in front of each one of us, unless we are ready to pay the price for total peace.
Our democratic Christian philosophy teaches us that man is not made for war, whether it be war between nations or war between classes. It further teaches us, not that war is inevitable, but rather that peace is inevitable if we would only recognize that all men are brothers, and that God is their Father.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the speeches which have been made in this debate, and first I should like to congratulate all those who have spoken before me. I give them credit for their sincerity and I hope they will credit me with a like sincerity. The other day I listened to a broadcast from Lake Success and the speaker said that the time had come for plain speaking. I intend1 to speak plainly this afternoon.
For the purposes of this debate I shall recognize no political party as such, not even my own. For me there are only two kinds of people to be considered when dealing with external affairs. There are those whose first loyalty is to Canada, a sovereign state within the sovereign nations of the British commonwealth, and there are those whose loyalty is to something outside Canada and the British commonwealth. I do not care what they call it, but anyway it is a loyalty which is given to something outside Canada and outside the British commonwealth of nations. Whether these internationalists like it or not, all communists and all pink fellow travellers are among those who give their loyalty to something wider than the country in which they happen to live. I do not say that all internationalists are communists, but I do say that all communists are internationalists. It seems to me that the education of those internationalists who are not communists has exceeded the scope of their intelligence.
The real threat of communism to this country and to all other countries at the present time does not come directly from Russia, nor does it come from outside the country or from the members of the communist party within the country. It is not the Tim Bucks who constitute the threat to this country. Although I disagree violently with their ideas, I have some measure of respect for those .men because at least they have the honesty to say what they are and what they stand for. The real threat and danger to Canada and to those other countries which still preserve their freedom

Supply-External Affairs
come from those people who talk freedom when they are secretly plotting to bring about the tyranny of communism.
Reference was made the other day by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to an editorial which had appeared in a Vancouver paper, and I believe also in a Winnipeg paper. Along with me the editor referred also to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). Of course the editor brought me into it as usual as having indulged in anti-Semitic diatribes. This is the communist smear and it is always used by them. To my knowledge the hon. member for Macleod has never so much as referred either to Jews or even to the Zionists, and yet as soon as he names these fellow travellers he is smeared with anti-Semitism in the press.
The press has marked my activities ever since the occasion in this house six years ago when I denounced a certain newspaperman who had publicly advocated the surrender of the sovereignty of this country to something wider than Canada and wider than the British commonwealth of nations. From that day to this, everything that I have said has been twisted or ignored by a large part of our press.
Communism has been spread internationally by the secret agreements which were made during the war and since the war, and I refer to Yalta, Teheran and Potsdam. Through those agreements which were secretly arrived at, the greater part of eastern Europe was delivered into the hands of the communists. Greece and China were partly betrayed and would have been fully betrayed had it not been that the authorities awakened to the danger of the communist threat.
I remember defending in this house the British policy in Greece when Great Britain stepped in there to stop the communist revolution. At once I was assailed as a fascist andl the British were condemned for their imperialism and attempting to restore discredited monarchs and reactionary governments. I said I would not mention any political party, but that was the statement made by the hon. member for Rose town-Bi ggar (Mr. Coldwell). I presume he spoke for his party, but anyway that was the line he took.
Then there was the betrayal of Mihailovich. He was sold down the river and his country was delivered into the hands of Tito. I stood in this house alone when I defended Mihailovich, an honourable man who had stood by us all through the war. But under political pressure he was turned aside and Tito was adopted for purposes of allied; support.
An extraordinary incident came to light recently through the publication of the memoirs of Mr. Cordell Hull, former secretary of state of the United States. He tells us in his diary what took place in September, 1944, at the Quebec conference:
I said bluntly to the President that Mor-genthau's plan-
It was the Morgenthau plan that was
adopted at Quebec.
-was out of all reason and that no experts or officials of our government had had anything to do with its preparation. Morgenthau's plan, I added, would wipe out everything in Germany, except land, and the Germans would have to live on the land. This meant that only 60 per cent of the German people could live on German land and the other 40 per cent would die.
I concluded that I was satisfied that the British at Quebec had joined in on this extreme starvation plan in order to get Morgenthau's help in obtaining the six and a half billion dollar credit proposed by the secretary of the treasury.
That is the statement of the former secretary of state of the United States, and in this connection may I refer to the remarks of the leader of this group in the house last night when he called attention to the power of international finance? Here is one example of it. In plain English, in order to get the loan the British had to sign on the dotted line. I called attention to that in this house in August, 1946. I knew nothing, of course, of the secret agreement reached at Quebec, but I had this to say of the policy that was becoming evident in Europe:
Mussolini and Hitler are dead, and the war in Europe ended over a year ago. But the people of Europe are more hungry and more miserable than they were during the war. What is the reason? Famine can result from a lack of harvest or of transport; it can be imposed deliberately for political purposes. For political reasons German fertilizer plants which formerly supplied European farmers have been destroyed. No locomotives can he built in Germany until 1950. Stalin took the only food surplus area in Germany and now, as the socialist Daily Worker says, food is an international political weapon.
When we blame conditions in Europe for the spread of communism let us remember that many of those conditions were deliberately and designedly brought about to spread communism wherever possible. That is one instance that bears out what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) said last night in reference to international finance.
I now want to say a few words about Palestine. First of all, I should like to pay a tribute to those British soldiers and policemen and civil administrators in Palestine
Supply-External Affairs

who, through all these years, have borne the brunt of savagery and gangsterism, many of them unarmed but shot in the back, even hanged and then turned into booby traps. That has been their lot, and their reward has been to be smeared as brutal, even as brutal as the Germans. I have witnessed that on more than one visit to the United States. I have seen and heard anti-British propaganda there which would make any Briton's blood boil. Zionists have even sent their agents to this country to deliver addresses in Canadian cities where they have made the most disparaging statements about the behaviour of the British in Palestine. In my opinion no soldiers and no policemen ever acted in a better or in a more humane way than the British have done in Palestine, and I want to make that clear.
I have not time to go into the Palestine question except as it bears on the peace of the world. As hon. members know, I have been opposed to political zionism almost since I have been a member of this house, and I have never hesitated to state my opposition to it and the reasons for doing so.
Speaking in Montreal in July, 1946, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) said:
"Many people think the British Labour party is allied with the C.C.F. party in Canada, but that is not so. There may be some similarity as to certain points, but the C.C.F. could never ally itself with a government that had broken a promise such as that to the Jews in Palestine." Politics of this sort, he said, were not within the spirit of socialism.
I deny that the British have broken any promise to the Jews in Palestine or anywhere else. The Jews have had better treatment irom the British than from any other people. The hon. member for Winnipeg North went on to urge the immediate entrance of 100,000 Jews into Palestine, and the newspaper report says:
Mr. Stewart ridiculed the idea that such immigration would lead to an Arab revolt.
Now see the tragic consequences of that policy; but when I pointed out in this House of Commons and elsewhere the inevitable consequences of Zionist policy I was immediately attacked by the press, by the C.B.C. and everywhere else as anti-Semitic.
I should mention a letter which I received in 1945 from the president of the Canadian Zionist League, in which he said:
I do not think Arab threats directed at Great Britain, the United States and other members of the united nations organization should be taken too seriously. They are a

species of blackmail from a primitive people by which they have profited in gold and various concessions in the past. Threats of violence have been the Arabs' most profitable stock in trade. How much longer are the great powers going to appease them? There is no doubt that a policy on Palestine agreed upon by the United States, Great Britain, and the other united nations will be one to which the Arabs will be forced to adjust themselves.
Force, not justice! What is the consequence of attempting to force a decision which itself was arrived at under pressure? The world is now faced with another world war, because war has started and, like a fire in a forest country, who is to say when and how it can be put out?
The British having withdrawn and having refused to participate in any program that is not accepted by both the Jews and the Arabs, and having refused to take part in any solution which needs the use of force, and the United States, for reasons of its own security and for reasons of preserving the peace of the world, having turned its back on partition, the Zionists turned their denunciation on the United States government. Here is a statement from the New York Post dated February 25, in which Rabbi Baruch Koi'ff had the following to say of the present United States government.:
This generation will have to answer to the generation that will inherit the mess of chicanery, the diabolical treachery, with which we govern our allies and friends, and constantly undermine the noblest of traditions which made America the land of the free. I cannot but look upon the shameless cycle of deceit as pure and simple anti-Semitism-no oil, no gold, no imperialism, but plain everyday anti-Semitism, incorporated in the hearts and minds of those who govern free America in 1948. This type of anti-Semitism, wrhich is today wrecking the lives of wretched souls-survivors of Auschnitz and Dachau-is even more dangerous than the venom of Hitler, because this form of antiSemitism is wrapped in the stars and stripes of free America, camouflaged in the words of Austin: "The council's action ... is directed to keeping the peace and not to enforcing partition."
Again in the New York Post the following editorial appears which refers to President Truman as trying to kill the united nations, and reads as follow's:
The President has no mandate to kill the united nations, however convenient this method of appeasing Arabia and Great Britain may seem to the men of power who are heedless of honour.
The United States government is now indicted as anti-Semitic because it puts the interests of world peace before those of the political Zionists.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Private Bills
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.




[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAY BANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 146, for the relief of Elizabeth Frances Mary Liddle McClelland.
He said: May I include the other similar bills in my motion. There are several of them one after the other; they are bills for relief-marital appendectomy, I think they call it.
William Ross Macdonald: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Mr. LaCROIX: On division.


Mr. CHURCH:: May I ask the mover of this bill what the policy of the government is for this session regarding divorce? Has any committee on divorce reform been appointed to investigate these matters?


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: On second reading the principle of the bill is involved. I merely want to ask one question. What is the policy of the government this session on these various divorce bills?


Mr. MAYBANK:: Since the question has been asked of me as mover of the bill, may I say that the answer is that I do not know.


Mr. KNOWLES:: That is the same answer the government gives.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the second time.
second readings
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.
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.



CANADLAN MARCONI COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. P. WHITMAN (Mount Royal) moved the second reading of Bill No. 205, respecting Canadian Marcohi Company.
Thomas Langton Church: Explain.


Mr. WHITMAN:: This is a simple little bill, Mr. Speaker, and should not take up much of the time of the house. The Canadian
Marconi Company was incorporated by statute in 1903 and has only the powers given to it by that statute. If it were to become incorporated today it might be under the Companies Act, and it would then have the powers which are asked for in this bill. There is nothing further that I can add. If hon. members will read the explanatory note, they will find all the information given there.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rinfret for the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia).
[u"I continue:\nRoughly speaking, tax relief granted the lower income group will cost the nation \xa3100,000,000 while the new ,tax on income from investments is expected to yield \xa3105,000,000 in the coming twelve months.\nThat, friends, is democracy in action. If a program such as that is not devised within the democracies all you are going to do from now on is to juggle the atomic bomb from one hand to the other and you never know where or when it will go off. We are not living in a static age. There are social changes in the air. People the world over are beginning to move. This short outline or budget applies to the program that was built to solve the problem of one country within its own boundaries.\nThe people in Canada I claim have given too large a measure of freedom to the United States to express international policy. For example, we have fallen in line with the Geneva trade pacts. Because we were so frightened of jarring the Geneva trade agreements, we held off bringing in the austerity program and it cost us S300 million. Since they have stopped sitting in Havana and discussing the Geneva trade pact, we find the agreements have more loopholes than they have principles. The Belgian delegate said they should have gone there and discussed or redrawn the program deleting free trade and then allowed some loopholes and they would have got farther ahead. One eastern delegate said he came there and he became so convinced that the bloc system as enunciated by\nGreat Britain would work that he was going back to the east and would organize a bloc system there.\nThe point is this. It is becoming apparent that the socialist or the social democrat democracies of western Europe want to bring in such marketing expressed through the barter system that they do not want the dollar sign to act again at the trade toll gates. This was well illustrated in the Ottawa Citizen on Wednesday, April 7, 1948, by Mr. Charles A. Bowman, where he points out that already Washington is going to start bringing in lend-lease, but for arms alone. No, they will not dare bring it back for food and everything else. If that were done little Babbitt down in the United States would not get his rake-off on European misery. Remember this: putting power in Babbitt's hands is not good enough. He has not changed his mentality from 1920 as described by Sinclair Lewis. He was then just a little man who worshipped gadgets and who sat playing with a five-dollar nickel plated cigar-lighter. Now he. is playing with the atomic bomb, and he is frightened it might go off in his face. He does not know where to drop it. Suppose he did drop one on Moscow; suppose he did drop one on Leningrad, suppose he dropped one on Stalingrad and so on. He would then have to drop one on Rangoon, and Pekin, Shanghai and many other places. The social forces are beginning to break down national boundaries. It is true that Russia is a force to contend with; but once the force of war gets out, it will break away even from Uncle Joe's hands, and then people will fight for their freedom and express it in their own individual ways.\nWe can advance a program that will reconcile the contradictions without war. It is being done by the nations of western Europe under socialist and social democratic governments. They want to carry on trade on a barter basis where there will be no debt structures, but goods for goods. The United States is insisting on the almighty dollar as the measuring stick. That in itself will create a vacuum so that the communists can march in.\nTake China. The United States has backed Chiang Kai-shek. General Stilwell, known as Vinegar Joe, pointed that out and tried to weld the national forces in that country so that China could become a unified nation; but Chiang Kai-shek sabotaged him, and now we find that such United States periodicals as Time and Life are belittling General Stilwell and saying that he created' this chaos. It was created by the United States government assisting Chiang Kai-shek under whom there has\nSupply-External Affairs", 'been no reform in the land question, which the peasants want. Therefore the vacuum will continue to exist. You may send all the arms you like over there, and it would not surprise me if they went out into the hands of the communists, because the government is so thoroughly rotten.\nBy having the best elements from the international field, even if it means unpopularity at a given moment, we can build up without exploitation a new world which will, as I pointed- out, have to be based on a new form of international economy. It will have to have an economic basis. Unless it is based on that firm foundation, it will lose all value and the many expressions of good will that are uttered by various governments and peoples will be lost, because the force of economics will drive\nus into more and more contradictions and more and more difficulties.\nOn motion of Mr. Adamson the debate was adjourned.']
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to one fact in connection with this bill.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I should say that a point of order was raised toward the close of the debate on this bill last Friday, and I feel that the Speaker should give a ruling on the point of order as soon as possible. In fairness, though, to all concerned I think I should hear limited debate on the point of order which was raised. If any hon. member would like to speak briefly on the point of order, I shall be glad to hear him.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to one fact that you probably have not noticed. I am in favour of referring this bill to a committee as soon as possible, but in the past the same question came up with regard to private bills. What is the policy with regard to our rules and regulations relating to public bills as compared with private bills, and the principle of them? This matter came up on March 14, 1927. I shall take only two or three minutes of the time of the house because I believe this bill should go to the committee as soon as possible. I wish, however, to call your attention to the following citation from May, fourteenth edition, at page 901:
The second reading of a private bill corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the house affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure.
You will notice that Beauchesne refers to public versus private bills, as to whether or not the principle is adopted on second reading. This matter came up and was raised by me then, on March 14, 1927, on a private bill concerning the Georgian Bay Canal Company, under which the whole Ottawa valley,
Bell Telephone Company

with respect to light, power and transportation, was to be given to a private company, a monopoly. Why, if that had gone through we never would have been able to take over the railway or to secure cheap light and power for any other public utilities. Mind you, I am not objecting to this bill being sent to a committee immediately so that it may be considered and revised there, but I want to point out the citation which was quoted at that time, namely citation 657, Beauchesne, third edition:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
So you see there is very little difference, on the principle of our bills, between a public and a private bill. We are deciding the principle of the bill on this second reading. I call Your Honour's attention to that fact, from May, on the principle or expediency of it, and the house is thus committed to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) a week ago tonight. At the outset I must say I was amazed that the hon. member should have taken advantage of the opportunity to speak to this amendment for twenty minutes and then call on Your Honour to rule it out of order. However, he chose that course and indicated, at page 3282 of Hansard for last Friday, that in his view there were two objections to the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough).
In the first instance, on the page to which I have referred, the hon. member quoted from citation 769 of Beauchesne, third edition, which indicates some difference between public and private bills, and said that, in the light of this citation, the amendment was meaningless. His whole case as far as that point is concerned was based upon the alleged difference between public and private bills; and on that basis he contended that we should not be amending the bill or opposing second reading, because it was only a conditional approval.
The second point raised by the hon. member is also indicated on page 3282 of

Hansard, where he said that the amendment now before the house was meaningless because-
... it would mean that we amend the Companies Act in a private bill.
That was an interesting comment for the hon. member to make, to say the amendment was meaningless and then turn around and give its meaning. However I wish to deal with the two points the hon. member raised.
The first point was that there is a difference between a public and private bill which makes an amendment of this nature, in his view, out of order. The hon. member referred to but did not quote citation 769. The part he referred to reads:
There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
That is the part of the citation which supports the position taken by the hon. member for Outremont. I would point out that he might have read a bit from another citation, 740, which says in part:
The house, in reading a private bill for the second time, decides that the matter involved is one which may be looked into by the committee.
In the same way citation 770, if you read only part of it, seems to support his position; for it says:
The house does not profess to decide upon the second reading as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations of fact upon which a proposed bill is based, and in conceding a second reading to a private bill, the house is regarded as merely giving its sanction to its general principle on the hypothesis that the committee to which it is afterwards referred finds those allegations proved.
I admit that not only the citation from which the hon. member quoted but these other two citations, if read in part, seem to support his contention that there is something rather harmless about giving second reading to a private bill. His whole point, as I say, is that it is different from giving second reading to a public bill. But-and this is something one has always to watch-the hon. gentleman did not give the whole of citation 769.


Mr. RINFRET:: I did not give any of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member did not quote it, but he referred in part to what

Bell Telephone Company
it meant. I have quoted for him the part that bears out his point; but if you go on and read the rest of citation 769, this is what it says:
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable-
And that holds in this case.
-the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
Now note the next sentence, which states that the second reading of a private bill-
... is the first occasion on which the bill is before the house otherwise than pro forma or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill be opposed, upon its principle, it is the proper time for attempting its defeat.
I submit that this indicates that when a bill is exceptional this is the time we have to oppose its principle. Similarly, if I go back to citation 740, part of which I read a moment ago, we find that the concluding sentence states:
It is only in case that an exceptional principle is enunciated that the second reading is refused.
Similarly in citation 770, if you read the last sentence:
It is usual, therefore, to allow a second reading, except where the bill enunciates some principle which the house is not prepared to affirm.
As those who have followed this discussion will readily recognize, we have felt that because it asks for such a large increase in authorized capitalization, this bill is calling upon the house to approve the enunciation of an exceptional principle. Therefore we feel perfectly in order in regarding this stage of this private bill as highly significant. I would go farther and point out other citations which raise a question about the propriety of this being a private bill at all. Citation 744 states:
The boundary line between private and public bills is narrow and has varied at different times. The house has refused to give a private bill a second reading on the ground that it Bhould have been introduced as a public bill.
And in citation 745:
Private bills frequently affect the general or public interests qf particular localities; and in some cases, from the extent to which such interests are affected, measures proposed as private bills have been declared unfit for private legislation and the parties have been required to proceed by public bill.
I submit that there is good ground not only for arguing against the position taken by the hon. member for Outremont that to give second reading to this bill is a harmless proposition, but actually that it enunciates
a principle so staggering, and it invades a field so close to the public field, that not only have we the right to do everything we can to defeat the bill at this stage, but we also have the right to question its propriety as a private bill at all.
With respect to the other point raised by the hon. member for Outremont, namely, that the amendment now before the house is meaningless, but with the meaning that it would be a case of amending the Companies Act by an amendment to a private bill, may I call Your Honour's attention to citation 657 in Beauchesne, third edition.
This is the basic citation which has to do with an amendment of this type to the second reading of a bill. In my view there is something important at stake here. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has just read this citation-at least he read the same words; whether he took it from the same place or not, I cannot say-so I shall not take time to repeat it. However it is there quite clearly, in the words the hon. member for Broadview quoted, that it is competent on second reading for a member to move as an amendment a resolution declaratory of some principle relating to the whole matter then before the house. It is not in order on second reading to move an amendment to the bill itself. It is not in order to move an amendment that is merely a direct negative. It is not in order to attach conditions to second reading. But it is in order, as I say, to move an amendment which expresses some principle related to the circumstances connected with the introduction of the bill.
That is precisely what the amendment does. Without referring to a specific section, the amendment notes that there is a question as to the amount of increased capital requested. The amendment therefore expresses, as a general statement of opinion, that no company ought to ask parliament for an increase in authorized capital in excess of 100 per cent. This bill happens to ask for an increase to the extent of 233 per cent.
The citation from Beauchesne, which the hon. member for Broadview quoted a few moments ago, is to be found at page 390 of May, thirteenth edition. After stating the general right of private members on second reading to move this type of amendment, May gives a considerable dissertation which leads up to this interesting paragraph, which answers the hon. member's point when he states that, to pass this amendment, would be to amend the Companies Act through the process of amending a private bill.
Bell Telephone Company

I suggest that it is important for hon. members to take note of {his paragraph, because questions are frequently being raised about this kind of amendment to second reading. I quote the following from page 392 of May, thirteenth edition:
It must be borne in mind, however, that the resolution if agreed to-
That is an amendment such as the one now before the house.
-does not arrest the progress of the bill, the second reading of which may be moved on another occasion. The effect of such an amendment is merely to supersede the question for now reading the bill a second time;-
The -word "now" is in italics. It continues: -and the bill is left in the same position as if the question for now reading the bill a second time had been simply negatived or superseded by the previous question. The house refuses, on that particular day, to read the bill a second time, and gives its reasons for such refusal: but the bill is not otherwise disposed of. Such being the technical effect of a resolution, so carried, it need scarcely be said that its moral and political results-
And those are the only kinds of results this amendment can have.
[DOT]-vary according to the character and importance of the resolution itself, the support it has received, and the means there may be of meeting it, in the further progress of the bill.
Then May goes on to give, from experience in the United Kingdom, cases where amendments of this kind have been before the house. Sometimes they have passed and sometimes they have been defeated. In particular he indicates that, when those amendments have passed, at times it has had the effect of defeating the government, and sometimes it has had almost no effect at all. But in all cases May makes it quite clear that the effect of this kind of amendment is purely moral and political. It does not have any operative effect. It does not amend the Companies Act at all. That suggestion is away off the mark.
Actually, as I say, it merely states the opinion of the house that this should not be done; and even if our amendment were carried-and I hope the house will support the principle enunciated in it-it still is competent for the hon. member for Outremont himself to rise in his place and to move that the bill be read a second time at some other date that he might fix.
I will call his attention, without taking time to read the citation, to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 663, and citation 710 from the same edition. The first has to do with second reading and the other with third reading. Those citations indicate that the defeat of the motion for second reading, whether it be a

vote on the motion itself or a vote on an amendment thereto, is not fatal to the bill. It is still in order for the member sponsoring the bill to rise in his place and to move that it be read a second or a third time at a stated sitting of the house.
And so the argument the hon. member puts forth to the effect that this amendment would have the effect of amending the Companies Act by amending a private bill falls to the ground. We have in this amendment, in the terms May has indicated, an attempt to do something which is a private member's right, namely to declare our reasons for opposing the progress of the bill.
I contend that the point which has been raised is a most important one, and relates not only to the bill before us tonight, but to members' rights generally with respect to second reading. I hope Your Honour will see fit to rule that the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia is in order.


William Ross Macdonald: I have listened attentively to what hon. members have said, and I wish to compliment them on presenting their case so clearly. I am, however, faced with certain difficulties.
In the first place, let me say that the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this is the time to accept or reject the principle of the bill, is quite in order. I agree with him in that.
But the question on which I must give a ruling is whether or not the amendment is in order. In that connection I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 771, where Mr. J. W. Lowther, who was chairman of committees of ways and means of the British House of Commons, made a statement with respect to private bills. This is what he said:
The rule which the house had generally followed and, he thought, very wisely, had been to allow the second reading of private bills to go through unless any strikingly new principle happened to be enunciated therein, and in such cases the house must pause before it accepts the principle.
At the present time I cannot see that any strikingly new principle is enunciated in this bill. I have no doubt other bills have been presented to the house in which capital has been greatly increased.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the fact that on second reading of a private bill the principle was affirmed, and as I have already stated I have no quarrel with that. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre added that if the

Bell Telephone Company
amendment carried, the bill could be introduced again immediately and be considered this session. I doubt, assuming he is right, if that is practicable at this late stage in the session. Certainly, if the bill had been deferred for three or six months or if it had been rejected, a new bill for the same object could not be presented at this session; reference Beauchesne, third edition, citation 773; for all practical purposes this bill could not be presented at this session. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 773. If this amendment carried the result would be to defer this bill at least until another session, which I say would be contrary to the opinion expressed by Mr. Lowther, which I quoted when I read from citation 771.
There is another difficulty with which I am faced, whether in connection with a private bill a general principle should be enunciated which would affect all bills. If the principle which is questioned at this time affected only this bill I do not think I would have difficulty in coming to a conclusion, but the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough) is in the following words:
That Bill No. 8 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house no company-
I emphasize the word "no".
-should ask parliament for an increase in authorized capital in excess of one hundred per cent.
This principle, if approved by this house, would affect all private bills. I would refer hon. members to the words used by the hon. member for Assiniboia when he moved his amendment, and I quote from page 3058 of Hansard:
I do not refer now particularly-
Note the word "particularly."
[DOT]-to this bill, but I say that as a principle we in the House of Commons should give expression to the idea that no company at any time should be granted a capitalization 100 per cent over and above its present capitalization.
I think hon. members will realize from that how far-reaching this amendment would be if it were allowed. May I also refer hon. members to citation 769 in Beauchesne, third edition, the effect of which has been referred to by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is stated there that on the second reading of a private bill the house affirms the principle of the bill. It has been intimated that there is very little difference, if any, between accepting the principle of a
private bill and that of a public bill. Let me read the following words:
There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked.
I ask hon. members to pay particular attention to these words:
A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy,-
Hon. members will notice the words "state policy."
-the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill,-
Hon. members will note those words.
-being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
This amendment, if allowed, would establish new legislation which would affect all bills which will hereafter be introduced into the house and would have the effect of establishing state policy. I think all hon. members, even those who have spoken to the contrary, will agree with me that this house should not establish state policy on a private bill. For the reasons which I have given, I find it necessary to rule the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Although I do not find it possible to agree with your ruling, I shall not take the time to appeal it.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay AVest):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in connection with this bill respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. The purpose of the bill as set out in the explanatory note is to obtain authority to increase the capital stock of the company from $150,000,000 to $500,000,000. I want to join with the protests made by other hon. members in this respect.
Before passing on, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) upon the progressive stand they have taken in connection with this bill. It is an indication that opposition to the bill is not on a party basis. The principles of this bill are being opposed by more than the people of just one party because they realize that the passage of the bill in its present form is not in the public interest.
I did not expect to speak on this bill this evening, but I have been interested in the public ownership of telegraphs and telephones and I have been doing some reading in the
Bell Telephone Company

library, particularly the history of the development of the public ownership of these utilities in Europe. During my spare time in the last month I have read some four or five books dealing with the history of public ownership of telephones and telegraphs in Europe. I have been amazed to find out the sound business administration that there has been in a number of countries in Europe in the public ownership of telegraphs and telephones for over a quarter of a century in most cases and for nearly half a century in some.
Quite by chance I happened to dig up a rare book which I would suggest that the sponsor of this bill should read if he wants to be convinced of the soundness of some of our arguments. He should go to the library and get this book when we are finished.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: When he is finished with the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. This book is entitled, "Public Ownership of Telephones on the Continent of Europe". It is one of the Harvard economic studies which was published in 1911. This is an objective survey of the public ownership of telegraphs and telephones in Europe. It is not written by people who are professed socialists or professed capitalists. I was amazed, on reading this book, to find out how far in advance of us in this country these European countries are in public ownership. I should like to read briefly from page 14 of this book as follows:
The spread of the telegraph throughout Europe was rapid once the greater countries had led the way. R. van der Borght, in his treatise "Das Verkehrswesem" gives the following dates of the opening of the various state telegraph systems to the public: 1849, Prussia and Austria; 1850, Bavaria and Saxony; 1851, Prance, Belgium, Wurtemburg, Baden; 1852, Sardinia, Parma. Modena, Tuscany, Hanover, Holland, and Switzerland; 1853, Sweden; 1854, Denmark and several of the smaller German states; 1855, Norway, Spain and Portugal;
1856,	Russia and several of the Balkan States;
1857,	the Two Sicilies; and 1859, Greece. In no country were any important lines undertaken by private enterprise. The unanimity of the contemporaneous sentiment which sanctioned the public ownership of the telegraphs was reflected in the deliberations of various parliaments and congresses.
This is an indication, Mr. Speaker, of the sentiment in favour of public ownership many years ago. Yet we in this country, operating as I think one member claimed in the debate on external affairs yesterday, under a system of progressive capitalism, have made a very modest beginning in the public ownership of

telephones and telegraphs. I continue the quotation briefly:
The policy of public ownership of telephones is now established throughout the greater part of the continent of Europe.


An hon. MEMBER:: When was that book published?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In 1911. It goes on:
Only Spain and Denmark, among all the countries which originally declined to adopt that policy, still cling to the alternative of private ownership. The transition has only recently been completed in Italy and is still [DOT]under way in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. In Germany, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Austria and Hungary, however, the governmental monopoly of the telephone business has been exclusive for more than a decade at the least, and in the first two of these countries for a whole generation. What are the results which have been accomplished by public enterprise in the telephone business?
Writers on the subject of public and private ownership of such business undertakings as the telephone are wont to compare the magnitudes of the business in different countries under different forms of ownership, with a view to deducing from the statistics of development under each of the two forms general conclusions in regard to their respective expediency.
The argument put forward in this objective study written by a professor of Harvard university is all in favour, from practical experience in many countries, of the public ownership of telephones.
One more quotation:
In the telephone business competition is a failure. Considered as an automatic arrangement for maintaining an accurate adjustment of the supply of telephone facilities to the demand, it easily gets out of order. So long as it remains in order its effect is to diminish the utility of the service to render which telephone facilities are created. For a while it is capable of bringing about low rates and stimulating a rapid development. Sooner or later, however, the self-interest of the competitors or the disillusionment of the public authorities will cause the termination of competition and the substitution of a regime of monopoly. This has been the result everywhere in Europe where competition has once existed, except in Stockholm, and in Stockholm the bankruptcy of the private company or the purchase of its business by the government is only a matter of time.
And so this book throughout gives definite scientific and concrete evidence in favour of the practical possibilities of the public ownership of telegraphs and telephones. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in view of the experience of other countries and in view of the nature of our development in this country, in view also of the fact that this bill would make it possible for a large monopoly to increase its capital to an exorbitant extent and would not require it to come before this parliament

Bell Telephone Company
for many years and would, in. view of the necessity that is approaching, make it very difficult and expensive to acquire control for the purpose of public ownership, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley):
That the word "now" be lefit out and the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end of the question.


William Ross Macdonald: I want to make it clear that if the hon. member for Swift Current has already spoken on the motion it is not competent for him to second the amendment.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I have not spoken on the Bell Telephone bill at all, Mr. Speaker.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of Bill No. 8 to grant the power asked for by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to increase its capitalization. I believe that the flow of venture capital into private and corporate enterprises should be encouraged rather than curbed at the present time. We have an increasing population, which demands increased productive facilities; also a continuing demand for many scarce goods, and capital is now plentiful and cheap.
I believe that the Bell Telephone Company has given a great service to the people of the Dominion of Canada. One could hardly realize how we could carry on business today had it not been for the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell. The Bell Telephone Company did a great job for the people of Canada during the war period. What would we have done in the way of communication had it not been for this company? In our town we have a local company that serves the local community and it is connected with the Bell Telephone Company for long distance calls. We have as fine a service as anyone could wish for.
The Bell Telephone Company is a large employer of labour and no men in any other company are used better than its employees or are more loyal. Its employees can look forward to a retirement allowance for their old age, a security that is not provided for by many companies as large as the Bell Telephone Company.
This increase of capital which the company seeks will not come out of our pockets. Anyone can buy its shares on any exchange; on the new capital issue the purchaser will be paid on his investment, and the investment will
be safe. There are many people in Canada who will look forward to getting these securities.
I do not see why there is such great opposition to this bill. The company has contributed much to the economy of our country, and I will support the bill.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken half as much time on this question as either the mover of the bill or the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), who took exception to private members in the opposition expressing their opinion. It is my understanding that the private members of this house have a duty to perform. I do not think that anyone should attempt to cut them off. Incidentally it is not my intention to talk out the bill; I will stop talking long enough before nine o'clock so that hon. members will have their vote; but there is something that needs to be said, namely, in spite of the attack that the hon. member for Calgary West made upon the members of this group, and the accusations which he threw around a week ago, in the course of his speech he himself admitted that he had not thoroughly read or digested the contents of this bill. I do not think any hon. member who was not conversant with a bill under discussion should attempt to lecture any other hon. members who are attempting to clarify the principle of the bill or to express an opinion on it.


Mr. BROOKS:: He has read hundreds of similar bills.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He should read hundreds more; it would do him a lot of good.
In his speech the hon. member for Calgary West said something very significant. There is a definite danger in these post-war years of allowing monopolies to grow to a size where they begin to threaten the public welfare. We are not alone in this opinion. Hon. members to my right who have spoken on this bill, such as the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), have expressed exactly the same opinion. I believe that this house should thoroughly and carefully look into these matters in which there seems to be an attempt by half the house to push something through which has wide ramifications. Of course those of us who arc in the minority in this house cannot override the majority and will not attempt to do so. We believe in the democratic right of this parliament to take a vote on any question and we shall be content with the outcome. But there will come a time when
Bell Telephone Company

the people of this country, who are interested in the public welfare and who are interested in seeing that the public interest is safeguarded and protected, will send a majority to this house who will effectively deal with monopolies in the future.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I should like to ask the hon. member for Dauphin a question. Where did the hon. member for Calgary West say that he had not read the bill?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If I have to answer that question all I have to do is to refer the hon. member to the speech of the hon. member for Calgary West-


John Ewen Sinclair: I have just read it over.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -in which he said that he himself had not thoroughly digested the contents of the bill.


John Ewen Sinclair: That is quite untrue.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Just a minute. If the hon. member is going to make that statement he had better quote what the hon. member for Calgary West said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Herridge) negatived.


William Ross Macdonald: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


['The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?']
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Just before the vote was taken, the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) challenged a statement I made in reference to a speech of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). I did not have the text of his speech before me at the moment. In fairness to the house and particularly to the hon. member for Calgary West, I think I should quote the particular sentence to which I was referring at the time. It will be found on page 3279 of Hansard of April 23:
I have no hesitation in saying that at the moment, without knowing more than has been given to us here, it seems to me too large an increase. That is said without any complete examination of the facts.
I did not use the exact words of the hon. member because I did not have the text before me. If I paraphrased his statement incorrectly andi took the wrong inference from it, of course I am sorry. There was no intention on my part to place an inaccurate construction upon his words.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I wholly accept that explanation.


William Ross Macdonald: The hour
reserved for private bills having more than expired, the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.

Supply-External Affairs



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed) consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.
Norman Jaques: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker,
I was speaking of the threat to world peace by the partitioning of Palestine, and I am not by any means alone in that fear. I have in my hand a copy of the New York Herald-Tribune of yesterday's date. This is a statement by the committee for justice and peace in the Holy Land:
An attempt is being made to stampede the United States government into action in a renewed effort to bring about the partitioning of .Palestine. The claim is advanced that an overwhelming majority of Americans of all faiths, support such action. We 'believe that the claim does not square with the facits; and that the attempt must be resisted . . . Many millions of American citizens are unaware of the significance of this issue in terms of our basic national interest and have not expressed themselves at all. The articulate, highly organized lobbying of those who, for a variety of partisan reasons, favour the partition of Palestine-
Mr. BLACIvMORE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might not have a little order in the house. There is so much noise the hon. member has no chance to speak. It seems to me a disgrace that a condition like this should obtain.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I would ask hon. members to be quiet while the hon. gentleman continues his remarks.


Norman Jaques: This quotation goes on:
The articulate, highly organized lobbying of those who, for a variety of partisan reasons, favour the partition of Palestine must not push us inito an action that may have the most serious consequences for our national security, our foreign policy, our friendship with the near east peoples, and the cause of world peace.
The chairman of that committee is Doctor Virginia Gildersleeve; the vice-chairmen are Doctor Henry Sloane Coffin and Rabbi Morris Lazaron. and one of the directors is Kermit Roosevelt, while numerous other distinguished Americans have signed the statement.
I should now like to say just a word about an address I heard at the united nations by Sir Carl Berendsen. Speaking about the decision last fall to partition Palestine he said:
But if there were in this room any who believed that the partition of Palestine could be accomplished peacefully and with good will on all sides and without enforcement, then I must say that that is a degree of naivete which did them little credit.
And again:
. . . those members should, on any logical basis, equally be willing to provide their proportionate share of a United States force to implement the decision to which it pledged itself last November.
I call upon my colleagues to take careful thought before they strike that tragic, perhaps irreparable blow to the united nations that would be involved in capitulation by the world to threats and violence.
I maintain that the decision to partition Palestine was itself reached under threat and by force. As Sir Carl Berendsen says, it would be impossible to carry out partition without the use of further force, or, in other words, without waging war.
In regard to the use of force in deciding upon partition, I have the statement by one of the delegates, Mrs. F. D. Roosevelt, who is reported in the New York Times of February 19 as having said that the United States government had used "legitimate" means to influence wavering delegates, thus forcing them to vote for partition. There was a curious statement I read, I think it was in an Ottawa newspaper, a quotation from the New York Times dated February 24, 1948. It said: Instead the U.N. or rather the U.S., using its enormous power, has decided to partition Palestine. In this the U.S. was powerfully aided by the Canadian delegate, about whom the following statements were made by 'the U.N. correspondent of the New York Times: "A special word should be said for Lester B. Pearson, the Canadian representative, without whose efforts it would have been impossible to imagine a decision on the Palestine question in this assembly. It was Mr. Pearson who. with untiring industry, patched up the fragile Soviet-American understanding each time the whole plan received a new blow from the British. The partition plan may turn out to be a mistake. but even a mistake is better than the deadlock which would have been inevitable had Mr. Pearson stayed in Ottawa."
I shall leave my readers to figure out that statement for themselves. I believe the Arabs have done enough. They have received into their very small country of Palestine some 600.000 Jewish refugees; and if all the other countries had done a fraction as much toward giving sanctuary to these unfortunate Jews there would certainly be no Jewish problem today. Two wrongs do not make a right. Because the Jews have been persecuted-and no one denies it-is no reason why one small country should have to bear the brunt of that wrong. May I suggest that, instead of forcing one people to bear the whole burden of this problem, the united nations should use its influence to make the world a fit place for all people, Gentile or Jew.
Supply-External Affairs

This partition means the use of force; there is no question about that. Those who favour it say it is impossible to carry out partition without force, or in other words, without starting another war. In fact the very threat of partition has started another war already. I believe, as a consequence of the methods it is pursuing, the united nations, instead of leading us to peace, is leading us nearer to world war. Instead of a world of nations united in the interests of peace, we have a world divided' into halves, each half gathering its forces against the other.
Do we want peace or do we want war? There is only one way to peace. We must stop deciding international questions at the dictation of powerful minorities, for purposes of vote catching, or for economic advantages. We all desire prosperity. Prosperity depends upon peace, and lasting peace can be secured1 only by impartial application of the principles of justice to the settlement of national and international affairs.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, unlike a good many of those who have taken part in this debate, I have not had the advantage of attending any international meetings. But after all it is the day of the common man; the common man must have his hearing, and I will speak for him tonight as well as I can.
It seems to me a good thing to have this debate. There was a time when we appeared to consider it necessary to play the ostrich and debates on foreign affairs were taboo in this house, though in saying that I am not blaming any one party. As a result of ignoring this all-important question, we came to the second war, I suppose almost worse prepared for than the first one, if that were possible. Some of us will remember that in 1914 we could hardly make ourselves believe that, after the many alarms which proved to be false, war had really come.
Well, at any rate here we are having this debate. Yesterday afternoon I had a curious feeling about it. I noticed that even on the opposite side of the house, when one would have expected that even courtesy would have kept the members in their seats to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) expounding the important matters which he did expound, the benches gradually emptied. It gave me a curious feeling about the whole thing.
None of us can doubt that when we talk about external affairs in these days we are, in very truth-in literal, actual truth-talking about matters of life and death. If anyone has any doubt about that, I would read to

him a brief quotation from Walter Lippmann, as it appeared in this morning's paper:
But if we ask ourselves why we have been discussing extra military measures since the middle of March, the answer must surely be that in the judgment of the administration there has been a change in the international situation since the events of Czechoslovakia, Finland, Berlin and Vienna. This was also the judgment of the western powers in Europe, otherwise they would not so hastily have signed the Brussels alliance. . . .
If all the governments of western Europe, of our own, have not been having an unnecessary fit of nerves, this is in truth a critical period. What will count is 'the military power which can be mobilized at once and deployed at once so that there may be a force in being. Our paramount need then is not "preparedness" for a theoretical M-day, but a mobilization of what we have and can quickly produce.
I shall have more to say about that later. I repeat that I had a curious feeling about our debate yesterday. I had the feeling that if there were any communist present-and there may well have been a communist present-he would have had rather a sense of exultation in his mind. I had the feeling he might have said to himself, "Look, these people are not really serious yet. They do not know yet the kind of world they are living in." I had a kind of feeling that he might have said, "Do they not realize that the Russia of today is not merely the imperialist Russia of a century ago?" And of course we remember that a century ago Russia was supposed to be the great enemy, because of her imperialist ambitions. I can imagine his saying, "In addition to the imperialist ambitions of Russia of a century ago you have today all the new impulses"-with which we have grown so familiar, and which I need not take time to detail now.
I do not know what the equivalent of this debate would be in communist countries. Of course they could not meet and discuss things as we do. I presume, however, that they do meet and talk together. I presume there would be more intensity in connection with it -not like the lackadaisical, free and easy attitude which we have. I cannot make out whether our careless attitude is due to the fact that we are underestimating the problem or overestimating it. I suppose there are some people who do not take the time to think just how serious the problem is, and there may be others who feel that conditions are so serious that we cannot do anything about them- "What's the use?"
At any rate, it seems to me that this House of Commons is not setting a very good example, and that what is needed is that in some way or another we must make people

Supply-External Affairs
throughout the country feel that they are facing new grave problems, and that it will need all the capacity and character that we have to deal with those problems.
In one very small way I disagreed with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) who spoke yesterday, and who used language to the effect 'that the communists lacked a spiritual basis. I know the way in which he meant it, and giving it that meaning I can agree with him fully. Nevertheless, there is a kind of equivalent, there is a something-you can call it madness or demonology, or nny-thing you like-which, with them, takes the place of faith.
Someone has analysed communism and has stated that it derives from three things-pity, hatred and love of power. We are very familiar with the hatred and love of power. We think of those two poisoned springs from which these horrible emanations come. But we should recall, too, that there is a third source, sometimes quite genuine-and I 'think a good many wellnmeaning people are sometimes misled by that.
Whatever the reason may be, I believe there is faith there, or its equivalent, which will not be answered merely by doing things better in a material way, but will need some answering faith as well.
What is our answering faith? We will say that it is the Christian ethic of those who are fortunate enough or wise enough, or whatever it may be, to be practical Christians. And for the rest *of us who might not be in that category there is the Christian ethic and the belief in justice, including social justice. But whatever it may be, it seems to me that we should never overlook the fact that there is a moral equivalent and a moral answer which must be found, just as much as a material answer.
Again I should like to quote briefly from Lippmann, again quoting from the Montreal Gazette of April 26-and I think this applies very well to the situation to which we find ourselves today:
Free and civilized men cannot quiver and quake forever about communism or spend their days doing nothing better than to listen to rumours about what the politburo and the cominform are up to next, or degrade themselves in witch-hunting and a morbid concern with the demonology of Moscow.
Nor can they live forever and exclusively on the calculations of dollar deficits and predictions about long-range bombers and atomic bombs, and resounding declarations about how much better liberty is than tyranny. They need also great constructive ideas and projects which enlist their energies and give meaning to their lives.
I think we will all agree with that. I said a moment ago that we needed faith but, as the
apostle reminds us, faith without works is dead. Faith is not enough. I have to ask, in Lippmann's words, what are the "great constructive ideas which enlist our energies and which give meaning to our lives."
And that brings me to the minister's speech. I was unfortunate enough not to have heard the last part of it. The first part I did hear and the descriptive portion of it I thought was excellent. It gave us a picture of Europe, and his comments with respect to communism were admirable; his explanation to us that we could no longer hope for co-operation, and that the most we could hope for was tolerance-all that I listened to, agreed with and admired.
Nevertheless there was something in the speech that I missed. It came to me that there was something lacking. I sympathized with what I felt was the minister's tone, a sense of sadness, a sense of regret, that somehow or another we had drifted into this appalling situation, but also the feeling that there was not much that could be done about it.
I missed in his speech any sense of urgency. I was thinking of a young student I heard about the other day who remarked how difficult it was for young people to settle down to the problem of beginning their lives because they thought there was going to be war again, and that most of them would be dead anyway in a few years.
It was a sad thing to hear said. As I listened to the minister I wondered what we were really doing, what we were really going to do. His speech was correct though; I could not criticize it from that point of view. The minister said we were ready to co-operate and that we were co-operating. But it did not seem to me to lead anywhere. I did not find any glimpse of a plan. I felt somehow that in spite of ourselves we were drifting, just rolling along. I felt no sense of direction in it, at a'll, no urgency no instancy. And yet, surely when we look at the world there is plenty of call for action.
When we stop to take stock of the situation, *as we find it today, what do we find? Well as the hon. member for Stanstead reminded us yesterday, we find the astonishing prediction of a century ago made by de Toequeville, quoted the other day by General de Gaulle,-of Russia and the United States practically absorbing the world. We find that now coming true, with these two great nations confronting each other. Where does that lead us? Does that lead us anywhere? Does anyone believe that that leads anywhere but one place? It leads finally to war and
Supply-External Affairs

to destruction, just as when the world was divided between Caesar and Antony, it led to war. Yesterday the minister said that all we could hope for was toleration, but can we hope for even that? So one inevitably asks himself whether there is any way out. Is there anything that can be done? Is there any other way? Surely the answer is that there is another way.
There is another way which is to create a third strong unit of power in the world. Surely as we go on now we have to choose between two immense aggregations of power who are shouldering each other like two little boys and who may finally break into a fight. That is the danger. What we need has been pointed out by many. What we need is a great trinity of power which would be quite consistent with the united nations charter. It would be quite consistent with that, and again I wish to read from Lippmann. I am going to read at some length because it seems to me that Lippmann, with his knowledge extending over thirty years, with his great capacity, with his imagination, gives in these few paragraphs, which I want to read, a picture of the universe in which we find ourselves. He gives us a working plan which gives some meaning to what we are trying to do. He says:
In the weeks and months to come we shall find, I venture to think, that we must reconsider and revise not only our strategical doctrine and policy, not only our conception of the western hemisphere, but also our relations with the British commonwealth and empire.
And again:
The role of Great Britain in this immense evolution is. crucial and extraordinarily difficult. For, as an English friend of mine, who has had much to do with working out the E.R.P., puts it, the "dilemma" of Great Britain is that "she cannot afford to go into a federation of western Europe if that involves breaking up the British commonwealth; she cannot afford not to cooperate militarily, financially, politically, economically with France, Benelux, and western Europe."
And again he says:
But the British dilemma is also an American dilemma. For if Britain's entrance into a European federation means the breaking up of the British commonwealth and empire, what is to become of the non-European parts of the commonwealth and empire? There are some who think they could become parts of an American commonwealth and empire. But this would be a dangerous, perhaps even a disastrous and tragic, outcome.
And again:
The British dilemma and the American dilemma can be resolved only by the construction of a large political community which includes the British commonwealth, the interAmerican system and a European federation with its African dependencies and colonies.

In this larger community it would be unnecessary for the British to choose between Europe and the commonwealth. In this community Great Britain and France could at long last become united in peace, not merely allied in war. In this community alone is there hope of solving the German problem, which is becoming progressively more snarled up.
In this community the United States would be insured against the necessity or the temptation to create an American empire on the ruins of the British empire. In this community the western hemispheres would no longer be confronted with the insoluble and disruptive problems so sharply posed at Bogota.
I have read from that quotation at length, because it seems to me to give an intelligible picture of what otherwise I confess is unintelligible. It is the only intelligible picture that I have seen and if there is a more intelligible one I should like to see it. It certainly has not been given in this house. There is a breadth of grasp there; there is a real capacity for taking stock of the whole broad situation.
This makes clear two things. It makes clear that in his conception-after all, where is there a man with greater experience and authority than his?-a strong British commonwealth is absolutely essential if we are to have peace. This comes back to us; we might as well face the fact that there can be no strong British commonwealth without Canada playing a big part in it. It perhaps was not so much our merif as the facts of geography which enabled us to prevent the last war from being lost. Does anyone doubt that it would have been lost in 1940 if we had not been here to act as a bridgehead for supplies that were flowing from the United States, quite apart from the other things that we were doing? As the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) pointed out yesterday as reported on page 3453 of Hansard,-.
We are the only direct line of communication that exists between the new world and the old.
And again:
We are the sole direct channel of relationship between the old world and the new. It is out of that east and west relationship ... it is out of that relationship that Canada came into existence.
Another thing that is worthy of mention is that the north Atlantic trade routes have always been the economic lifeblood of this country. It was the preservation of the north Atlantic trade routes that brought us into the first war, quite apart from other reasons. It was that fact which brought us into the second war and it also had much to do with bringing in the United States.
So I say that we have a great part to play and the question is:	Can we do i't? I think

Supply-External Affairs
the omens are good. We can say that colonialism in this country is as dead as Queen Anne. It is sometimes talked about in this house. The hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) talks about it sometimes, but I think he is just pulling our leg. I think he is just having some fun as he often does in his speeches, very delightful as they are.
Colonialism is dead. Our constitutional questions are settled. Old difficulties are gone. Furthermore, there is a new basis of unity. I ran across that in a curious way last autumn. Through the courtesy of one of the hon. gentlemen opposite, I met a French Canadian lady and I was trying to tell her that the Progressive Conservative party was the good friend of the province of Quebec. I doubt if I was making as much progress in that line as I should have liked to make, but at any rate she said something to me which I have always remembered, and which I think was profound. She said, "You know I think our old differences are going to melt away because we have a common danger, the danger of communism." I know she meant that. I think that is very true. It may help to solve a lot of our problems. I am not, however, suggesting that they are all gone because I know they are not.
(Translation):
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a slight digression. I realize that, from time to time, certain people express a point of view that I regret enormously. It has been expressed with moderation, with courtesy, but nevertheless very forcefully by the hon. member for St.Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Hamel).
On March 2, at page 1813 of Hansard, speaking of Canadians of English descent, he said:
Canada is but a secondary nation bound to sacrifice its interests on the high altar of the British commonwealth of nations. Canadians of French descent feel, however, that their first loyalty belongs to Canada and cannot resign themselves to seeing their country become the cat's-paw of the British commonwealth of nations.
I ask the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, nay I beg him to forget that idea. I believe one would find only a handful of people throughout Canada who would entertain such feelings. The great majority of English-speaking Canadians are wholly Canadian. As for me, I was born in Canada, my parents were born in Canada and I do not know of any relatives in Great Britain.
My traditions, my sentiments, my ideals are wholly Canadian. The same could be said of all English-speaking Canadians, with very few exceptions.
I hope, with all my heart, that these words will be accepted. I speak in all sincerity.
There is one thing I wish to add now. The formidable danger of communism urges us, forces us to lay aside our differences and to promote a new feeling of mutual confidence which will enable us to remain firm in the face of the many and serious dangers with which we are threatened.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Hear, hear!
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In case, Mr. Speaker, you did not understand my very indifferent French, I might just add that what I have been saying is this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It was very good.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have been referring to a speech made by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Hamel), in which he said that he believed or feared that many Canadians of English origin put the interests of Britain before the interests of Canada, and I begged him to believe that in my opinion there is not a handful of English-speaking Canadians who feel that way. I pointed out that most of them are like myself, born in this country and my parents before me; I have not a single relative I have ever known of in Great Britain. My hopes and aims and ambitions are all Canadian, and I feel that we ought to be able to set at rest such an idea once and for all. If we are able to do that; if we are able in the face of danger to abandon prejudices, I hope it will not be considered blasphemy if I undertake to alter one of the immortal lines of Shakespeare:
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, unity.
I substitute "unity" for "safety". If I may say so, perhaps some good may come out of all this evil and we may find a unity in this country we have not had before.
I believe it would not be difficult for the people of this country to recognize the fact in this dangerous world in which we live that there is a part to be played by us in peacetime as there has been in wartime. After all, it ought to be a simple problem. It does not make sense to say that an association of free nations can function together only in wartime and not in peacetime, and that is the whole problem. Can they not work together to prevent war in the same way as they worked together to wage war?
If I have taken the minister's speech correctly his mind does not go along this line.
Supply-External Affairs

He seems to accept, regretfully it is true, this division of the world between these two great powers. I found nothing in his speech to suggest that there was anything vital and effective that can be done to counter this. Yet to me that seems a counsel of despair, because along- that line it seems to me that what I have read to him from Lippmann shows the way we would go. If we allow the world to be divided in two we have all history to show us what will happen. We have a bleak and sombre prospect.
The second thing to remember, whether we like it or not, is that we are the keystone of the arch. We are now the second partner in this association of free nations. If we believe that; if we accept that; if we get rid of the colonial idea, there is nothing in the way to the fullest co-operation. We are the second partner now, and who knows how soon the day may come when we shall be the first partner?
If anyone asks me what the exact steps are that I think should be taken or what is now being omitted, apart from our preparations in defence, which I shall touch on in a moment; if anyone asks me what omission or failure I think there is now, my answer would be this. If the government give a clear lead, if it is clear that they believe that this third aggregation of power is necessary to the welfare of the world, if they are ready to do their part and they allow the people of Canada to understand this, I have no fear but that their technical advisers, military and otherwise, will be able to tell them the steps which should be taken. It is the will we need; it is the clear lead we miss. The New Testament tells us what happens when the trumpet gives an uncertain sound.
Judged by one standard, I would say that the result at the present time is very unsatisfactory. We have been told that our defence preparations were-I think these were the words used by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) "better than other people". Well, that may be so, but that does not interest me much because I do not know how bad other people's are. We can judge that our own are very bad from the figures given not later than March 10. I shall not go into them in detail. One is bad enough. The authorized strength of the auxiliary air force is 4,500 and the actual strength is 692. I read from a letter written by a man who can be taken as one of the best authorities in this country; you will have to take my word for it. He says:
I think the figures I gave you regarding the strength of the auxiliary Royal Canadian Air Force are appalling. The actual strength is

only 692. Many of these are of an age which is fast passing that at which they would be of primary use in the service for operation purposes. Coupled with this we should remember that the government has discontinued the grant to flying clubs . . .
And so on. That situation is, I think, lamentable, and judged by that, I would say there is no evidence on our part that we are prepared to recognize the responsibility which goes with the position which we hold.
History affords many spectacles and many instances of nations which drifted into war because there was not enough imagination, not enough courage, not enough willingness to call on the people in time. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) this afternoon quoted again the words of Mr. Lloyd George with which we were all so familiar in the first world war, "Too little and too late." I echo his words and express the hope that we in Canada in the year 1948 shall not have to write those words against our efforts.
(Translation):
Mr.. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) for his tribute to the beautiful French language in the course, of his interesting speech. He need not feel any qualms about speaking French in this house. He knows it very well indeed, and I am sure that every time he speaks it, he pleases, not only those members of French descent, but each and every member of the house.
( Text):
In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I would not be frank if I did not say that I feel somewhat apprehensive after the speeches delivered in this house in such an important debate as this on external affairs. I realize that it is dangerous for a layman to take part in the debate; it is difficult in fact to speak to the. house and to avoid anachronisms, to look at the accuracy of the information we get and be objective enough, that those who are listening and those who will read our speeches will not think the idea sponsored by any speaker is preconceived on any subject presented in the course of his remarks. In speaking on external affairs, one finds it is very difficult to avoid friction. .To us, the nations with which our country has to deal sometimes use words which have not the same meaning to them as they have to ourselves, and in speaking on such an important debate -we must have in our mind a strong desire to help our country and may I say to give advice and help to friendly countries or to the world at large.

Supply-External Affairs
To sum up what I have said since I began my speech. I think we should say that speeches delivered on international affairs must be constructive. It is difficult to be really constructive when, as I do, one speaks far from being a specialist but having in mind what I said a moment ago, a strong desire tc help one's country and the countries which give us their friendship.
There are rules between nations; there, are understandings. If one looks at the Atlantic charter he will see that on January 1, 1942, twenty-six nations signed what has been called the "Declarations by United Nations". On page 3 of these declarations I read:
Each government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the tripartite pact and* its adherents with which such government is at war.
Maxim Litvinoff signed on behalf of the U.S.S.R.
On page 8 we find the following:
Germany, Italy and Japan affirm that the aforesaid terms do not in any way affect the political status which exists at present as between each of the three contracting parties and Soviet Russia.
Two years before the signing of the charter of the united nations the tripartite pact was ready to accept Soviet Russia, and two years after, Mr. Litvinoff signed the charter of the united nations. Therefore he was engaged with two different bodies, with two different unions of nations whose interests were absolutely opposed and who were at war against each other. This proves, Mr. Speaker, that when the United States delivered to the world those secret documents pertaining to a Soviet and German secret pact they were accurate in saying that there was a secret pact, and the last line was signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by both ambassadors Molotov and von Ribbentrop. The last line reads as follows:
This protocol will be treated by both parties as strictly confidential.
I said at the beginning there were rules, there were promises, there were pacts between nations, but those pacts and promises are not always, and very often not, honoured by the signatories. International laws are sometimes and very Ttften against the personal interests of every nation. It is very hard to avoid friction with nations using the same words as we use but giving an altogether different interpretation or an altogether different meaning to them. Let us look at what the word "democracy" means in different countries. In the United States they have freedom for anything, but that freedom for anything 5849-223J
results in what is called the melting-pot. In Canada we have as a democracy the unity of races. We have unity, liberty and security which are the three main lighthouses of tho Liberal policy; but those races are retaining their character as in Switzerland, and still we have a real democracy. In the United Kingdom they have freedom for everything; they have Trafalgar square and the Albert hall; these three freedoms are tempered by respectfulness and devotion to the crown, and let us hope that it will last.
In Germany, as. Ludwig expressed it, you have an everlasting pyramid in all brackets of life, without which the German cannot understand life. In Russia you have the one party poll and freedom to preach communism everywhere in the world. To sum that up, hon. members can read Marx's manifesto. At page 23 he gives a definition of Marxism or communism as the abolition of private property; that is, what they call democracy in this country. Canada must deal with all these countries.
I do not share the opinion of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedonnell), who said that he felt somewhat sad on hearing the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). I did not feel sad at all; I listened carefully and read the speech over, and I think the words uttered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs are extremely consoling to the Canadian people. He gave advice and he asked for perfect understanding on the part of the Canadian people. At page 3438 of Hansard of yesterday, he is reported as follows:
I hope that in our foreign relations we cam reconcile our first duty to our own people with1 our ultimate obligations to the international community. In a frightened and suspicious world this is not always easy.
No, Mr. Speaker, it is not always easy; but let us hope that everyone will understand the appeal made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Canada. A little farther on, at page 3439, he is reported as saying:
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 ideology strife.
Whether we are federal representatives or provincial representatives, it is true that we need to be careful when we are dealing with something that can approach any angle of international affairs. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, as reported on the same page of Hansard, also said:
The ranks of democratic peoples must not be divided. Their energies must not be dissipated in domestic political conflict.
Supply-External Affairs

That brings me to the point where I wish to quote one of the best writers I know of on international affairs, Father Ledit, a Jesuit from Montreal. He was speaking on the
famous question of the Polish art treasures, about which we have heard so much. I shall have to quote Father Ledit in French. In "Relations of 1948", he says this:
/Translation ):
For some time now, a storm that defies all understanding has 'been let loose against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Yet, if any force keeps the communists in check and is, for that reason, relentlessly hated by all international saboteurs, it is surely the famous R.C.M.P. To disparage this force is to play into the hands of international communists.
He goes on:
Party differences between supporters of the liberal faction and national union group have become inconceivably violent. Members of the blue fraternity find it very difficult to respect their Liberal opponents, even though one of them be vice-premier in the dominion field of politics; it also goes against the grain for .a Liberal to respect a Conservative even though he be a provincial premier. As for those who belong neither to the one group nor to the other, they are beginning to go round in circles! Such differences can only delight international communists. In the midst of the worst crisis history has ever known, may we respectfully remind the parties concerned that the eyes of the world are upon them?
The respect owed by all citizens to those in authority, as prescribed by the Fourth Commandment, matters more than any party victory, -whatever side wins.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these- words of Father Ledit should be heard in high circles in my province and that when the attitude of our outstanding dominion police force is discussed, people should express themselves in respectful terms and should take particular care not to undermine, by unfortunate remarks, the confidence the public has placed in this splendid police force which, at present, plays such an important part in our struggle against the enemy from within as well as from without.


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


Pierre Gauthier: I said a few minutes ago that the same words did not mean the same thing on our lips and on the lips of some big shots in the international world. As hon. members will recall, when Mr. Stalin gave an interview to Mr. Stassen, a prominent republican in the United States, Mr. Stassen received the following reply when he asked Mr. Stalin if he had ever said that Russia or the communist party could not co-operate with the capitalist system. As reported in all the newspapers of Canada at the time, and in the world reports, Stalin Baid this:

There was not a single party congress or plenary session of the central committee of the communist party at which I said or could have said that co-operation betvreen the two systems was impossible.
The New York Times quoted Pravda in 1938 as having published a letter written by Stalin and addressed to a young party propagandist by the name of Ivanov, in which he quotes Lenin as follows:
The prolonged existence of the Soviet republic side by side with the imperialist states is unthinkable. Finally either the one or the other will be victorious. Until this happens a series of terrible conflicts between the Soviet republic and the bourgeois states is unavoidable.
One interview and one letter, but there is quite a different meaning in the words used or written by Mr. Stalin. Of course he did not say he had written such words. He said, "I did not say anything of the kind," but he never denied that he had written them.
The Soviet union signed the Atlantic charter in 1941 and agreed to the declaration made by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. The third paragraph on page 5 of that charter reads:
They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
I hope they did not mean they were free to use inside force against Hungary and Czechoslovakia. They also agreed to this article:
They will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.
Some speakers have referred to the Yalta, Potsdam, Teheran and Moscoiv conferences. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that Russia took the eastern part of Poland. Now they would like to keep the part west of the Curzon line which formerly belonged to Germany and which before the war, in the word's of Mr. Marshall, provided more than one-fifth of the foodstuffs on w'hieh the German population depended. So the allies are caught between two fires. I need not deal at length with these conferences, but let me quote Mr. Bevin:
I was unable at Moscow to accept the argument that the discussions on reparations at Yalta represented a decision binding us to agree to make reparations from current production.
There we have two meanings from the lips of three different men. We have heard many times about Spain. We have the declaration of Winston Churchill and General Eisenhower in

Supply-External Affairs
favour of Spain; and the other day I was sorry to read in the periodical World Report and in the newspapers that Spain would not participate in ERP. I am not a fascist; I am not a nazi, but I believe that neither Britain nor the United States properly visualizes the importance of Spain in relation to the British empire. I am not an imperialist, though imperialism is born in every man, since imperialism is simply the desire to acquire more strength, more power. Every man wants to be more powerful; and when you take men together as nations, then the nations, which are led by human beings, also want to acquire more power. But at this very moment, as hon. members have said this afternoon and tonight, two imperialisms are facing each other, those of Russia and the United States.
Let us not forget that there was and still is another imperialism which, though not as strong since the war as the two others, if it should disappear would cause terrible turmoil in international affairs throughout the world. It is the British commonwealth of nations. I believe Spain holds a strategic position in the world, and especially with respect to the western democracies, as it always has in the past. That is easy to understand when one looks at the position of Spain. As early as 1915 the communists were working in Morocco, as they were working in Spain. Spain is at the head of mare nostrum, the name Mussolini used to give the Mediterranean. Spain holds important lines from the Balearic islands to Marseilles and Toulon, and from Marseilles to the eastern oilfields, the Suez canal and the Persian gulf.
To show what would happen if Spain were to fall into the hands of the communist imperialism, in order to reach the Persian gulf or India commerce from Britain would have to go around the cape at the south end of Africa. The route from London to the Persian gulf by South Africa is eighty per cent longer; to the west coast of India it is seventy-seven per cent longer; to Singapore it is forty-four per cent longer; to Hong Kong it is thirty-seven .per cent longer, and to Australia, ten per cent longer. Anyone who has followed the various meetings of the communist party or the cominform or the communist party of Yugoslavia must have read the speeches delivered by Mr. 'Tito in which he said: "We have to face the mother of all the capitalist countries, which is Great Britain." That speech was delivered at a Yugoslav communist assembly after the decision was reached to keep Trieste an international zone.
Well, if Britain does not understand its position better than that; if the United States does not understand the position of the western democracies better than that, we shall have to give the Russians all they ask for.
Fortunately I believe our delegates at the united nations took a very good stand. I am proud to refer to what appears in the second report of the first session of the general assembly of the united nations which met in New York from October 23 to December 15, 1946. We find this at page 54-and this is the attitude taken by the Canadian delegation:
We abhor the record and present policies of the Franco dictatorship.
This was when the U.S.S.R. and a few other members were asking to sever diplomatic relations with Spain, and many other things, just to brand Spain as an enemy nation at that time. I follow with more of the quotation:
We earnestly hope that the Spanish people may be able to rid themselves of Franco by peaceful means and establish a democratic, responsible and enlightened administration.
We are not prepared to support at this time outside intervention in Spain which might impede European recovery. . . .
And it concludes in this way;
We want the Spanish people to enjoy the blessings of freedom-freedom from dictatorships whatever their form, by whatever name they may be called.
We should face the situation as it is because, as Father Led it stated, they are trying to undermine from both ends, from the south pole and the north pole and from the middle, from the east and from the west, the strength of the British commonwealth of nations. And it will be very bad indeed if we leave the United States alone to face communist imperialism.
That is what I said when I spoke with respect to the British loan and, if my memory serves me correctly, that is what Senator Vandenberg said when he asked the senate to adopt the S3 billion loan to England from the LTnited States.
I was surprised the other day when I saw he was forgetting that Spain was holding a very strategic point, and that the United States and England should have permitted Spain to participate in the economic recovery program, due to her strategic position at the head of mare nostrum, as I call it, and to protect the interest of the western democracies from the east.
I see the hon. member from Muskoka-Ontario listening carefully, and I thank him
Supply-External Affairs

for it, because a plan was going on long before communism was in power in Russia; that is, the policy of pan-Slavism. It has been building since the congress held in Prague in the early part of the 19th century. This was the pan-Slavism of Pierre le Grand himself, who said that Russia should be going to the east as far as India. And this was taken up afterwards by Lenin who said, ''Don't worry; we are going to take the east, to keep the east; and afterwards we will deal very easily with the west."
Suppose Gibraltar were lost and the position of Spain were lost at the head of that sea. Suppose for one moment that we had lost the Italian election. Within six months we would have been at war, because there would have been pan-Slavism to take Greece and Turkey, and within one year all the middle east would have been in the hands of Soviet Russia, in the hands of communism.
When I say that, I say they are undermining the British commonwealth of nations from both ends. This is the resume I have taken from Father Ledit's story of February 9 of this year:
Feb. 10-Chili, by President Gonzales, takes possession of Graham Land in antarctic regions to south pole.
Feb. 12-Argentine sends destroyers and planes to Falkland and Maritime islands, east of Argentine. Great Britain pretends to own them since 1833.
Feb. 27-Guatemala protests against presence of British ships in waters of British Honduras and by its papers intimates that Guatemala should occupy that country (Honduras). Mexico supports this move but asks for its share of the dominion.
March 4-Salvador, Haiti, Honduras get together in support of Guatemala. Chili and Argentine sign a solidarity pact on Falkland islands.
This is undermining somewhat the feeble powers left to England or to the United Kingdom toward the south pole.
What is happening in connection with Spitzbergen? I read a speech by Ernest Dufour when he spoke to the members of the Rotary club of Hull a few days ago. He intimated in his speech that Russia had many friends in the united nations. Quoting the New York Times of January 11, 1947, he pointed out that Mr. Sulzberger, the correspondent of that paper, had said:
According to responsible diplomatic sources, the Norwegian government proposed to the Soviet union on April 9, 1945, the joint defence of Spitsbergen. The offer is said to have been made while Trygve Lie was Foreign Minister of Norway.
Then, in the Toronto Star of June 10, 1947, we find the following by Ross Munro:
The Spitzbergen question, involving Russia's desire to establish a military base on the

mountainous archipelago 650 miles [DOT] from the north pole is the number one international headache for Norway, which has sovereignty over the islands.
It was in 1945, and while Trygve Lie was Minister for Norway, that they were ready to give to Russia the same participation in Spitzbergen as they had themselves. There was a treaty, I believe, signed by Canada. Canada was interested in it, states Ross Munro, not only because the island was on the direct air route between the main cities of northern Russia, Canada and the United States, but also because she signed a treaty in 1920 which gave Norway sovereignty over the archipelago never to be used for military purposes.
They are undermining the British commonwealth of nations from both ends. I do not wish to create friction against any country, but now that we know that there is an undermining of the strength of the third imperialism, we have to stand on our own feet with United States imperialism and we should build a triangle composed of Greenland, Iceland and Newfoundland in which to erect naval and air bases to protect the Arctic area against invasion should we lose Europe to communism. This is in support of what I said last year. I did not want to refer to a previous debate, but hon. members will remember that Bill 238 granted certain privileges to the United States army on Canadian territory. I remember my hon. friends over there were against it because they contended that we were granting privileges to United States soldiers. I said, as reported on page 3926 of Hansard:
As I understand the bill, we are trying to be co-defendants after having been co-belligerents. When you hear a member from Quebec speaking in favour of an accord with the United States, or in favour of privileges to be given the United States army, it is not because we in Quebec want to turn our eyes away from the British empire or the British commonwealth of nations and turn them toward the United States of America for good, leaving the former alone. It is just because we have the experience of the last war, because we want those two organizations, those two nations or groups of nations, to stand firmly on their feet right in front of the menace from without and from within.
I took the same stand in making my point tonight in favour of Spain. I want these two groups of nations to stand firmly on their feet and face the real menace which at last everyone seems to understand. I was somewhat apprehensive when I got up to speak tonight; but I became quite satisfied during this debate when I saw that at last everyone in this house, and perhaps everyone in the western democracies, realize the peril which we have been pointing out for ten years and which will always be here. I am glad that

Supply-External Affairs
at last everyone seems to realize it and seems to want to stay awake to fight this peril. We are beginning to know what we are up against, that we must fight for the rights that they would deprive us of.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) say last night that he was not surprised to see that the U.S.S.R. had agreed to the united nations holding its sittings at Lake Success in the United States. They will always take every opportunity. As I stated a moment ago, they have friends there and everywhere. They are surrounding us; and I hope we will stay wide awake, that we will use every means in our power to defeat them, to keep them weak if possible and to make our own institutions strong. As the minister of external affairs stated, we should forget once in a while our own little political troubles and think of the international troubles; we should try to accord our internal policies with international policies.
It will not be easy, but we must realize that the force which is trying to put us down is international and we cannot avoid it. We are all Christians. Let us live our Christian lives thoroughly and carry out Christian principles in the international field. We do not need to worry, because victory is ahead; it is just up to us to take it.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on foreign relations has been very sane and on a good basis and I hope it remains that way. Foreign relations now dominate the thinking and actions of all domestic political forces more than ever before. The same may be said about foreign relations dominating the thinking and actions of domestic economic forces whether they like it or not. I should like to give an example of this by quoting from page 2418 of Hansard of March 19, 1948. At that time the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedonnell) asked the following question, which was answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe):
I want to ask the minister one simple question. I am much impressed, as I hear him talk, as to the position of the milling and other industries. He says that the government will do this and the government will do that, and that as long as these people will do what they are told, they will be well off. Perhaps they will. Would I be wrong in calling this a highly socialistic measure ?
Mr. Howe: State marketing is socialism, yes, if you like. But it is hard to be different in a world that at the moment is following state marketing for reasons which I think are largely beyond their control. There are currency problems, credit problems and a number of factors, which are driving countries to state marketing at the present time.
I should like to point out that the basis of our economy in the final analysis reflects itself in definite political form at home and affects our outlook abroad. For example, if this country were sold on state marketing within as well as state marketing without we would be expressing ourselves in a form of barter arrangements externally rather than following such international legislation as the Geneva trade pacts, which agreements are attempting to reimpose international laissez faire.
With a changing world facing us, our problem at home is to maintain democracy and extend it in the face of that change. There are two extremes fighting for control in the world at the present time over this ever-increasing state apparatus. Whether one considers himself a Liberal or a Conservative, it must be recognized that the state is playing an ever-increasing role in the economic life of the country. Fascism and communism are the two extremes. The best recent example of fascism in the world today is the growth of de Gaullism in France, which of course is being opposed by communism under Thorez. Both are driving each other to further excesses. They are both fighting on the decrepit and tattered remains of laissez faire.
If this statement does not meet with your approval, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote an extremely respectable source, Don Cameron in the Windsor Star. He is the columnist who perhaps has led the field in the anti-communist drive in Canada. In the Windsor Star of March 20, under "Answer No. 6", he writes:
There is no cure for communism because communism is not a disease, it is a symptom. It is the expression of the vast unrest that permeates all the people of the world, not excepting our own, as the result of the moral, spiritual and economic breakdowns of "bourgeois capitalism."
It has been lucky for capitalism that there has been a corresponding moral breakdown in the communist party, if one deals with the ' communist party as a political expression of the working class.
I should like to bring to mind Lenin's slogan at the time of the Russian revolution, "No annexations and no reparations". Russia today is leading the field in annexations and reparations. One thing that can be said about the old socialist philosophy is that it never believed in blaming the workers of any country for the war. They blamed the masters. But an entirely different attitude is taken by Russia at the present time.
I should like to quote, and add to in support of my argument, from "Left-Wing Communism -an Infantile Disorder", by V. I. Lenin:
If the Hendersons and the Snowdens reject the bloc with the communists, the communists
Supply-External Affairs


John Ewen Sinclair: That looks like social credit.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: No, this is concrete, real. If you were over there you would find out.


Mr. LOW:: This is pretty hard.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: been no reform in the land question, which the peasants want. Therefore the vacuum will continue to exist. You may send all the arms you like over there, and it would not surprise me if they went out into the hands of the communists, because the government is so thoroughly rotten.
By having the best elements from the international field, even if it means unpopularity at a given moment, we can build up without exploitation a new world which will, as I pointed- out, have to be based on a new form of international economy. It will have to have an economic basis. Unless it is based on that firm foundation, it will lose all value and the many expressions of good will that are uttered by various governments and peoples will be lost, because the force of economics will drive
us into more and more contradictions and more and more difficulties.
On motion of Mr. Adamson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacNIOOL:: What will be the business on Monday?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: On Monday we shall continue with the debate of this motion that the Speaker leave the chair to go into committee of supply. When the debate concludes we shall ask that three more departments be called in supply and proceed with the Department of Agriculture, the debate that wras commenced the day before yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 3, 1948