Mr. COCKERAM:

The hon. member is not trying to do that.

Mr. GILLIS:

No, I am not. It is not true; it is not realistic. That attitude suggests that there is no choice for the people of this world except to follow blindly the lead of the United States, or, on the other hand, if you agree with the policy of the United States government you are a fascist and you must line yourself up in either one camp or the other. That is exactly what the United States imperialists want to do; that is exactly what Soviet Russia wants the people of the world to think, and that, if you are divided into two camps, war is inevitable, while they continue their march in the directions in which they want to go. I myself think that is something which should be thoroughly hammered home to the people of the British empire and to socialists particularly and to those who are liberals with a small "1" throughout the world.

There is another choice and it has been clearly indicated by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The British empire will in my opinion be the stabilizing influence in the world of the future. New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain have changed the mechanics of society. They are co-operating, and Canada as part of the British empire should be studying those mechanics and preparing herself to make that change and follow it through into western Europe where there is still a chance to set up democratic forms of government which will continue the trend in that direction.

That is the alternative we are faced with in this country. Either you are going to follow blindly the lead of the United States, or you will be placed in the position where you are considered fascist or anti-communist only, because you do not stand for anything and have no program or policy but believe that

war is inevitable. It is not inevitable. In my opinion, and I stated it two years ago, as far as major war is concerned, I am not afraid of it. I do not think there is any possibility of a major conflict between the United States and Soviet Russia. I believe the war has been going on since 1945. It is an economic war. Soviet Russia talked war and the scare of war for the purpose of getting you thinking about that, while she continued to march along and gobble up six or seven little nations which were not in a position to defend themselves.

On the other hand, war hysteria is deliberately promoted in the United States for election purposes and for her own purposes of keeping men's minds thinking along those lines, while she develops the mechanics for the next election. In my opinion, this war hysteria, this idea of inevitable war between Russia and the United States, should be played down at every opportunity. By that, I do not mean that either Canada or the United States should disarm. The only guarantee against war is to be prepared to fight when someone wants to encroach upon your way of life or upon your liberties or territory.

I do not think there is any other way of maintaining peace because, with nations, it is the same as with individuals. They have their quota of bullies. Any of you who have been in lumber camps or in barracks will find that there are always two or three big bullies and they pick on the little fellow who cannot fight back. He gets pushed around, but the fellow who is ready to fight is not. That is as true of nations as it is of individuals.

But this idea of inevitable war is something that should be exploded and not talked about as it has been, because it has been deliberately promoted from both these sources for the purpose of keeping people's minds busy.

I should like to say this about the Marshall plan. It has had a good deal of adverse publicity in certain sections, and the Italian elections have been tied in with it.

It is easy to confuse people; it is easy to confuse members of this House of Commons who are sitting here and have an opportunity to study these matters. But it is much easier to confuse the average man on the street, and if you are not so much afraid of communism you should make an attempt to keep your people informed. The only guarantee in any country for the preservation of liberty and expanding democracy is the vigilance of the people, and if they do not understand and are not kept informed by their public servants it is not hard to take them for a ride.

As regards the Marshall plan and the tying in of that with the elections in Italy, in my

Supply-External Affairs

opinion, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said, the plan was the greatest charitable gesture ever made by any nation to other groups of nations who were not in a position to help themselves. There is a sum of $22-5 billion being appropriated. That will not all be given away. Much of it will go by way of loan from the international bank; nevertheless the motive of the United States in instituting the Marshall plan has been questioned. I do not care what the motive is. The net result will be the feeding of starving people; and, irrespective of the motive, as far as I am concerned, we are supporting that net result 100 per cent.

If you want to stop the machine you are so much afraid of, that is the only way to stop it. You have to feed people, clothe them, show them that you are interested in them and get them back into production. Then assist them in forming the kind of governments they want themselves, and in western Europe there will be social democratic governments.

I am not a bit afraid of that. Social democracy is the expansion of the system we have today. There is no other explanation for it, because socialism is the logical successor of capitalism, just as logical as feudalism was the successor of barbarism. When capitalism took over from feudalism it was merely the organization of the plants and factories and other things we have today. The system was bom to serve a purpose and it has served that purpose. It has produced everything requisite to life.

The thing that has not been evolved is the system of distributing production back to the people on the basis of needs and making the people comfortable and happy with the things they themselves produce. That is socialism. It is society itself, the people at work. The dominant factor in society under this concept is human rights rather than the dollar sign. No one can disagree with that, and, whether you like it or not, it is inevitable. If that inevitability had been recognized in Europe, Europe would not be in ashes today. [DOT]

What did Hitler represent? Hitler represented the ultimate in capitalism; that is, the boss with the gun at the head of the average person in the country, still making his profits. That is all. The Tories feared social change more than they feared him and, as a result, the country was destroyed and everything with it.

Now you have to start rebuilding, and you will not rebuild the old machine of so-called free enterprise, because it is no longer free. These people here talk about initiative. Where have you the initiative in this country? What initiative have the 27,000 unemployed workers

in the maritime provinces? None. What initiative has there been on the part of the 15,000 of our young people who, every year for thirty years, have left the maritimes and gone to the United States? None. You are all right if you happen to have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth or if you inherited a lot of money, but there is no initiative in the system today. There is no competition. It is just monopoly control from the top, and it is top-heavy.

Someone said here that your home is your castle. I should like you to go to Minto, New Brunswick, and look at the miners' homes there, the tarpaper shacks. Our housing leaves much to be desired, but I will not go into that tonight. I am merely pointing out the inevitability of change in the system, and the reason you are talking about relief for Europe today is that they tried to hang on to something that no longer works. Make no mistake about it. As sure as day follows night, the system will change, whether we like it or not, either by evolution or by revolution.

That is the history of the world, and neither Tories nor the Social Credit party can stop that. They will be by-passed in the process. I do not see them giving much education to the people in the country on the Marshall plan. I do not hear any of them saying anything about what happened in the Italian elections. They say the Marshall plan was used for election purposes. That did not happen. What happened in Italy, as far as the Marshall plan is concerned, and as I read it, was this. There were nine countries who met in Moscow, nine communist parties from nine different countries. They discussed the Marshall plan and decided against it. They said they would have nothing te do with it. Italy was one of them, but when the Italian communist party was running the election it made the statement, for election purposes, that if it were elected it would make use of the plan just the same, after deciding only a short time before that it would have nothing to do with the plan.

Marshall then, making his answer from the United States, said this. He said that as far as he wa3 concerned, if the communists were elected the Marshall plan would not be applicable. What would any one expect him to say? If there was in power a party which it had already internationally been decided was wrong in principle, was wrong in every way, shape or form, would anyone expect him to say that, if they formed a government, he would go in there to assist them? Is that not a natural thing to happen? It is what happened in other elections. I have listened to a good deal

Supply-External Affairs

of this talk about coercion, intimidation and all that kind of stuff in the Italian elections. I have been in many election campaigns, and have not seen any yet where there was not a whole lot of skulduggery, even right here in Canada. I would invite hon. members to go to Cartier when there is an election on.

Mr. HARKNESS:

The hon. member

should come out west.

Mr. GILLIS:

It is just the same out west. I have in my hand a clipping from the Edmonton Journal of 1938, which gives the line-up on the platform. Here are the characters at this meeting. It was a kind of get-together in celebration of the result of an election. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) says to go out west, that everything is fine out there. There were on the platform N. B. James, M.L.A. for Acadia; Leslie Morris, Toronto, national secretary of the communist party of Canada; Hon. E. C. Manning, Provincial Secretary, Hon. Lucien Maynard, Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. KNOWLES:

Read the rest of it.

What was the date?

Mr. GILLIS:

That is from the Edmonton Journal of 1938.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Read the story.

Mr. GILLIS:

It is out of order. The Speaker would rule me out of order. It amused me to listen to the hon. member for Macleod while he was weeping salty tears this afternoon. He saw a communist behind every seat. Everyone was a communist except himself. When I picked up that clipping and read it, I said to myself that they had changed their tune. They were celebrating with the communists at that time. Evidently they had their support. I suppose it is just a case of whose ox is being gored.

The new look.

Mr. GILLIS:

The thing I wanted to focus attention on this evening was this matter of the division of the world into two camps. Any hon. members who are getting out into the country and doing any speaking I am sure are finding, as I find, that a large percentage of our people in Canada are beginning to form the opinion, or the opinion is being formed for them, that it is a matter of being for American capitalism or for American imperialism, whatever the jargon

is that is being used, or against it; that you must either line up, and if you do, you are a fascist; or you must go into the camp, and if you do, you are a communist; and that the world is ready for a bust. That is one thing we must start exploding. Canada is not in that position. Regardless of what party may be in power in the United States, I think the people there are sensible enough to see that changes will be made in the right way at the right time.

With respect to the future of Russia herself, I would not be so much concerned about this attitude at the united nations. It is to be expected. That country went through a revolution, and for twenty-six or twenty-seven years the Russians were building themselves up, trying to come back to some kind of civilization. During that period the generation that is running that country today were largely fed, from the milk-bottle stage, on the propaganda that capitalism and the outside world were enemies to them. That is what they have grown up with. They have gone through a war. Their country has been devastated again.

I am in hopes that in the future, maybe not in five years or ten, a different point of view may prevail. Thousands of young Russians are today getting out in embassies all over the world. They are in Canada, the United States and other countries. The older people who were forced to go through a revolution in that country will be eliminated by time, which catches up with us all. In addition, the younger ones going back to that country will bring in there a new viewpoint. There is every possibility that, if there is tolerance and understanding, that country will become a part of the world of the future, as I visualize it, and that they will do there the kind of thing that Britain is doing today, namely, purging the evils of the system and retaining all the good of the past, using the institutions of the country to do so. The hon. member for Grey North did not appear to know the difference between communism and socialism. The average eighth-grade 6tudent in school today can give that answer. Communism means a violent revolution, the overthrow of all the existing institutions. That is simple enough. Socialism is not that. We believe in the election of a government as you have it now, freely; in fact, more freely than you do now, using this House of Commons and the institutions of this countiy. We would pass legislation that would protect the old people better than to the extent of $30 a month. We would see that the people got a bill of rights, something that Mr. Drew has

Supply-External Affairs

3C13

denied them. We would see that the people got a health program, something that Mr. Drew and Mr. Duplessis, I think, prevented the federal government from putting through two years ago. That is the difference.

Mr. FLEMING:

That is Liberal propaganda.

Mr. GILLIS:

Those are the facts. I do not care who is doing the job or what the tags are; if people are doing something that is half decent, I am prepared to give them credit for it. But unfortunately there is not a great deal for which we can give credit to Mr. Drew and that outfit at Queen's Park. These fellows did try to work out a health program, something which is badly needed, that is the difference between communism and socialism, put quite simply. We use the existing institutions, purge them of the evils of the past and improve them for the future.

My time is about up, Mr. Speaker. I just want to finish with this plea. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the old league of nations. That institution was founded after the last war. There was nothing wrong with its principles. It was the hearts and minds of men that failed. The league of nations was betrayed. I could name some of the people that betrayed it. I am thinking now of the Lavals, the Chamberlains, the sell-out of Ethiopia, the Sir Samuel Hoares and people of that kind. That is why the league of nations failed.

The united nations was born out of this war. The necessity for it was never greater. Unless the united nations organization and all its machinery works, the hope of the world for the future is an extremely slim one. No matter what tags are used, whether we call ourselves Liberals, Tories or what have you, we should be hammering home to the Canadian people and to the people of the United States the necessity of making that machinery work and the hope that such machinery will ultimately develop to government at the international level, in order that the problems of the world in the future may be ironed out around the conference table by co-operation and mutual understanding, and so that some of the nice platitudes contained in the Atlantic charter may be put into effect.

When there is a war on, some beautiful slogans are written. The leaders of the United States and Britain at that time got together and wrote the Atlantic charter. I remember that everyone in the house here acclaimed it. It spoke of access to the raw materials of the world, human rights and all those things. But as soon as the war was over, when someone

tested the validity of the Atlantic charter he was told that it was just a formal document, that it had no legal effect, that it was just a declaration of principles. That is the kind of thing that lets the people down.

It was a shock to a good many people to think that they were merely used as guinea-pigs in that instance, just for war purposes, and that all that fine talk and all those fine principles did not mean a thing.

I hope the united nations will mean something. I hope the Canadian government will push it, with everything they have. And I know that, so far as we in this group are concerned, any assistance we can give-that is. until we take over from the government, of course-in promoting the united nations, and to make that institution understood in this country so that it may have the support of the Canadian people, we shall be only too pleased to give.

I believe the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar put himself on record clearly with respect to Russia, when he spoke for this group. But for the benefit of hon. members to my right, who seem still to be woolly-minded in that matter, let me say that we are absolutely opposed to totalitarianism, either from the right or from the left. And remember, you can have it either way. There have been more dictatorships from the right during our lifetime than there have been from the left. But we oppose both of them; and we shall continue to oppose them, whether they be from Soviet Russia, from the United States or from the government of Ontario. We are going to oppose them. We will use the institutions of this country, which have been built by the people, in the way the people intended they should be used.

That is the road ahead-the maintenance and expansion of democracy. That is the policy of this group; and we will continue to stand by it, nationally, provincially, municipally and, ultimately, internationally, through the united nations.

Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):

Mr. Speaker, my constituency is that of Trinity, Toronto, and I contested it against the leader of the communist party. I therefore know something about the aims of that party in Canada. I should like briefly to put three of them on record, and would ask the house to assess these aims of communism against the remarks to which they have just listened. I would ask hon. members to use their own intelligence.

The first aim of communism in Canada is to create class hatred, to make the working man hate his boss, to make the people hate anyone who has anything more than they have.

Supply-External Affairs

The second aim is the destruction of the Conservative party. I quote Mr. John Hladen in "They Taught Me Treason", when he says that the second aim of the communist party is the destruction of the Conservative party. That is their aim, because Conservatives throughout the world have stood up against communism, from the very beginning of time.

Their third aim is to divide French-speaking Canadians from English-speaking Canadians, to divide the eastern provinces from the central and western provinces, to create division and confusion.

These are the three chief aims of the communist party in Canada. I ask hon. members to assess the speech to which they have just listened as against these three aims.

I say this more in kindness than in anger. The hon. member has been referring to his own country, a country in which one of the largest corporations, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, is now headed by two men, one of whom began as a labourer, digging the ground in which to put the ties for the trains to run on. The other one started as a humble telegrapher.

Within the last two weeks-

Mr. KNIGHT:

Why should a telegrapher be humble?

Mr. SKEY:

He was in a humble economic position.

Mr. KNIGHT:

That is "humble", is it?

Mr. SKEY:

He had a modest salary and a modest position. We all have to start at the bottom. This is a country in which we find men who have risen through the ranks of companies, from the lowest paid tasks, to become presidents or general managers of their corporations.

I do not think the hon. member was doing his country or his party any service when he made the speech he has just made.

(Translation ) :

Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi):

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) said, among other things:

Most of the troubles and fears of our day spring from this lack of trust, this absence of mutual toleration.

In my opinion, that sentence sums up fairly well the political situation in the world today.

We are the instruments of the evils from which we suffer. If the world is unable to get out of the rut into which it has fallen, if we cannot establish peace-that worldly bliss sought by all people-on a permanent basis in the council of nations, it is because hatred, envy and a craving for domination have replaced, in the hearts and spirits of our leaders in these days of grief, the feelings of fraternity and brotherly love upon which rest good-will and mutual understanding. Instead of carrying on spasmodic friendship based on opportunism and fear, we should, in the interest of our country, hold our our hands to all leaders and all those who are fighting our possible enemies. For instance, we have an ambassador in Yugoslavia, a country led by communist, Tito; we also have one in Russia. Why, then, should we not have one also in Franco's Spain? When, for the sake of charity, prayers are being said for Stalin, and through guilelessness our offerings serve to intensify communist propaganda in Canada; when our country prides itself on the friendship of the red dictator in Moscow, it can well afford, without losing any of its prestige, to consider Franco as an ally. We waged war with Stalin, let us unite with the Spanish people and its leader to ensure peace on earth.

We need Spain as a bastion against communism in Europe. We need all those countries who never agreed to the Kremlin yoke and who are now struggling to preserve their autonomy. Its system of government, whatever it may be, is far better than a communist government.

At any rate, we committed ourselves, during the war, to respect the rights of all peoples and their respective government. Section 3 of the Atlantic Charter, to which Canada has adhered, states indeed that the United Nations "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".

The war was not yet over when, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said a moment ago, the allies, egged on by Stalin, were going back on the ideal they had set for themselves. Spain was excluded from the international community at Yalta, though not mentioned by name, then at Potsdam, and at San Francisco, where it was indeed named. In January 1946 one of the first decisions of the general assembly of the united nations sitting in London was:

The general assembly would point out that at the Potsdam conference the governments of the United Kingdom, of the United States of

Supply-External Affairs

America and of the Soviet Union declared that they would not support an application for membership in the united nations from the present Spanish government which, having been established with axis support, has not, on account of its origin, its nature, its history and its close association with the aggressor states, the necessary qualifications to justify its admission.

The assembly, endorsing these declarations, recommends that the united nations' members follow the letter and the spirit of these declarations in the conduct of their future relations with Spain.

At the instigation of the Soviet union, whose hatred of Franco is well-known, the communists of every country united in 1946 to demand the abolition of the Franco regime. Everyone-Canada along with the others- was calling for a crusade to liberate the Spanish people. Tumult, red propaganda, the shouts of those bandits who had pillaged Spain during the civil war, who had broken into cloisters, massacred priests, the stranglers, disciples of La Passionara, the plunderers of churches, speaking as one with Canada; silenced the voice of prudence. The passions loosed forth upon the Franco regime goaded us into taking a step which events in the near future will show was unwise, uncalled-for and ill-advised.

We must renew diplomatic relations with Spain. On February' 10, last, France, whose Spanish frontier was closed in March 1946 by the Felix Gouin government, opened it up once more and renewed diplomatic relations with its neighbour.

Let us remember that it was Georgi Dimitrov, present prime minister of Bulgaria, Element Gottwald, government leader in Czechoslovakia, Luigi Longo, present vicepresident of the Italian communist party, Ludwig Bern, now in Mexico, Josip Broz alias Tito, leader of Yugoslavia, who were the main contrivers of the Spanish civil war in 1936.

By ridding his territory of such rabble, Franco has done a service not only to his country but to all humanity. It is only fair that we should be grateful and that Canada should be on friendly terms with Spain, as it is also fair that Spain, if she so desires, should enjoy the benefits of the Marshall plan.

In the second place, I ask that Canada be represented at the Vatican, and that, along with the great powers, we should establish permanent contacts with the greatest spiritual power to be found in the world. We have everything to gain thereby. The Pope, whose lofty mission is to promote on earth the peace that was promised by the Saviour to men of good will, has no other ambition than to bring harmony among the peoples of the 5849-230

world. His sole ideal is to lead to the heavenly fold the souls of those who observe the commandments of God and of the church.

Being the herald of truth, he cannot lead us into error. The extent of his knowledge, the accuracy of his information, his evangelic wisdom, as well as his paternal advice, enlighten the world. Let us be included among those who quench their thirst at that lifegiving spring. As was said by Rev. Father Henri St. Denis, O.M.I.:

The only European countries which have no diplomatic relations with the Holy See are Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece and the three Scandinavian nations, the latter maintaining nevertheless cordial relations with the Vatican.

In Asia, the two greatest nations, China and Japan, are already aware of the usefulness of contacts with the Holy See. China has a minister in Rome and there is an internuncio in Nankin. Japan has kept as long as she could her minister at the Vatican.

Eighteen of the twenty-one nations of America maintain reciprocal diplomatic relations with the Holy See. The United States only have a representative at the Vatican, there being no nuncio at Washington. Only two countries, in the whole of America, do not officially recognize the Vatican: they are Canada and Mexico.

I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wise and convenient for Canada to have ambassadors at Rome and Madrid. The right hon. the minister of external affairs would thereby accomplish something of which many Canadians would be proud.

(Text):

Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):

Mr. Speaker, when I came into the chamber a little while ago when the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was speaking, after listening for a few minutes I found myself quite unable to determine what debate was in progress. I finally asked one of my colleagues and I found that we were still on foreign affairs. During most of the past two or three days I think the debate has been on a patriotic and high level and I was sorry to see it begin to assume the nature of a political discussion.

The minister started out by saying briefly that the united nations had so far proved rather ineffective and, since that was the case, it behooved us to co-operate with other democratically thinking peoples to protect our own interests and to try to preserve peace. Those thoughts were echoed in various ways by a .considerable number of other speakers from all parties, which I think is a good omen. As far as the country is concerned, it is a good thing to see members of all parties thinking along somewhat the same lines in the realm of foreign affairs. However much we may quarrel within our own borders, I would hope that we shall be able to present a united front to the

Business of the House

rest of the world. From the way in which the debate has proceeded for most of the last two or three days I would say that situation seems to prevail. It is to be deplored that some speakers at any rate make this an occasion to talk about almost any other subject than foreign affairs for what I say are political purposes.

This uniformity to a certain extent in our thinking as far as foreign affairs are concerned is all well and good, but I come back now to the proposition which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) put up, that we must co-operate with other democratic nations in order to preserve peace. One of the things that we must think about first is how we can co-operate. It is no use loosing off in this chamber or in any other place throughout the country a lot of empty words about cooperating with other democratic countries if we have no means with which to co-operate.

The first thing we must do if we are to have any real voice in preserving peace and in foreign affairs generally is to build up our own strength. By that I mean our military strength, our ability to mobilize military strength, which is perhaps more important. It is essential that we have the ability to mobilize considerable military strength if we are to be able to cooperate with other countries to preserve peace or if we are to be a force of any sort in the preservation of peace.

Before we start talking in a grandiloquent manner about helping to preserve peace and co-operating with other nations, the first thing we should do, as befitting our stature as a member of the united nations, is to have at our disposal sufficient military strength to make our words good. Otherwise we are just engaging in idle boastings.