Mr. GILLIS:

Let me quote another little bit of something from a paper that is not socialist. Stop and ponder this for a moment. This is taken from the New York Herald-Tribune of February 9, 1948, and reads as follows.

The true allies of democracy in Europe are the socialist parties. They alone give us any hope for the preservation of personal liberty. We have systematically despised and underestimated them, just because we do not want socialism here at home. We have never taken the trouble to understand the historical development of these parties. They alone are capable of forming strong democratic states, and if they perish the hope of democracy will perish with them.

This is not a socialist paper. This is an absolutely true statement.

Mr. LENNARD:

Who wrote that?

Mr. GILLIS:

It is an editorial from the New York Herald Tribune.

Mr. SKEY:

Who wrote it?

Mr. GILLIS:

It is true, may I say to my hon. friend.

Supply-External Affairs

36C9

It was not George Drew?

Mr. GILLIS:

No, it was not George Drew. When you talk about rights, freedom, hopes and aspirations, let me ask you this question. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the House of Commons in season and out of season has been advocating a bill of rights, something written into the laws of Canada that would guarantee certain liberties to everybody in this country. The government of Saskatchewan, which is a socialist government, has a provincial bill of rights. The C.C.F. group in the legislature of Ontario placed that same bill before that legislature, the bill that was so strongly advocated by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and the Tories in Ontario threw it out. How do you reconcile that?

We do not need it here.

Mr. GILLIS:

You cannot have it both ways; you cannot stand up in the House of Commons and wave your arms about rights and freedoms because you are on this side of the house and deny the same things in a legislature where you have the power to put it through.

The only government in Canada that has given the people a bill of rights is the Saskatchewan government, which happens to be a socialist government.

Mr. CARDIFF:

Talk about foreign policy for a while.

Mr. GILLIS:

I am going to talk about it. I am answering the arguments that you fellows brought out and I am suggesting to my hon. friends over here that they study their history a little farther back than 1945 and read something besides "Social Suicide" written by Mr. Trestrail, because that information is not accurate and is not up to date. You are badly out on your history. I am warning the Canadian people now, and I am doing it in all sincerity, that unless they get behind the united nations there will be trouble. I ask them to recognize the fact that the old machine of private enterprise, that they are trying to hang on to, is gone, whether they like it or not, and they cannot bring it back.

You talk about controls; you say you do not want any controls. What have you today in this country in the way of controls? You have irresponsible controls behind the scenes by people who are not responsible to anyone in this country. For example, I wonder how many hon. members are aware that 95 per cent 5849-229i

of the banking and investment assets are controlled by 183 directors of the chartered banks in Canada, and that all of your economic processes are tied up there. Is there any control there? Why, certainly there is control there. Do hon. members remember the statement made by the former Minister of Finance in this house, who is also a free enterpriser and now Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), in which he pointed out that .price controls in this country had saved for the people $1250 for every dollar spent on them. Who is getting that money today? Canada Packers, International Nickel, Dominion Steel and Coal, and some others. Let us have a look at this question.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

Order. I hope the hon. member will deal with the question before the house.

This is a motion to go into supply.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

The house has been dealing with foreign affairs.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: This is a motion to go into supply, but we are now discussing the foreign policy of the government. It is true that, on going into supply, many questions can be discussed, but they have to be disposed of one after the other. If the hon. member wishes to discuss something that does not arise out of the debate there will be an opportunity of doing so, but this part of the debate should be concluded first.

Mr. GILLIS:

Mr. Speaker, I sat here this afternoon and listened to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) make a forty-five minute speech on the very things that I am now answering. I would not be mentioning those things tonight had he not been permitted to do what he did this afternoon. The hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) did exactly the same thing tonight and I am merely putting the record straight.

Mr. CASE:

I merely commented.

Mr. GILLIS:

In addition to that, the answers I am now giving dovetail into Canada's foreign policy, because, apart from Canada and the United States, the government will have to deal with socialist governments whether they like it or not, and they might as well begin to understand that. If Canada is to develop relations with other countries which have different forms of government, then she had better stop calling them communist totalitarian machines and the handmaidens of Soviet Russia. That kind of thing

Supply-External Affairs

in the House of Commons is irresponsible and should not be permitted, and somebody on the government side of the house should straighten out the matter.

For the remainder of my time I am going to deal with the subject matter before the house.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Hear, hear.

Superman.

Mr. BURTON:

They do not like their own potatoes.

Mr. GILLIS:

With regard to foreign relations, as I listened to the discussion in the house I noticed a tendency right across the country, and particularly from some sections of the house, to divide the world into two camps.