Mr. KNOWLES:

They have said it pretty strongly.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. HANSELL:

I will say this, in Great Britain Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin have been able to hold the line; that is all. How long they will be able to hold the line I do not know. I will give credit to Mr. Attlee and to Mr. Bevin, but I think you have to understand the British to get this. Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin may be socialists; they are, but let me say this: they are Englishmen first and socialists second. I think that is the answer to my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Mr. KNOWLES:

Who is a Canadian first.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. HANSELL:

In his speech the minister vent on to say this:

Those in each free nation who love freedom ;hould draw the clear lesson of the tragedy of Czechoslovakia. That lesson is that it is impossible to co-operate with communists. They do not want co-operation. They want domination. Communists will pretend to co-operate with non-communists just so long as it is in their interests to do so.

Then the minister goes on to indicate these things that divide the democratic parties of the free states by whatever names they call themselves, Socialists, Liberals, Catholics, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives, and he says this:

. . . are as nothing compared with the gulf that separates them all from the communists.

I have placed a question mark after that statement, because I am saying that in Canada there are forces, disguised, if you please, as very loyal democrats., loyal to the democratic institutions of Canada, who are preaching a false philosophy that is playing into the hands of the communists. These men I call .parlour pinks. I named them the other day; I attempted to name them on the floor of this house. May I say this to the minister and to the house: I have no objection to these men having the freedom of discussion. I have no objection to their going out and discussing philosophically and in other ways the advantages of that type of socialism which they preach, even though they use some other terminology to explain it. I have nothing against their doing that. That is their right by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy; but what I do say is this, when they go out to preach it let them not parade as something else. What we need is enough courage to call the enemy out on open ground and put a plaster on his back so that everyone knows who he is and what he is. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, when you do that, when you trample on somebody's corns someone will holler, and then the old smear machine gets going.

I do not want to refer to personal incidents; I am quite willing to forget them, but" when I made that speech in the house the other day and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) put on Hansard the list that I did not get unanimous consent to put there, the next day one or two editorials were levelled at us. The Vancouver News-Herald exercised its liberty and called me anti-Jew. If that is not part of the smear bund I do not know what it is. There is one thing I will challenge the News-Herald or any other paper to do, and that is to look over my record in Hansard or on any public platform or at any time during my ministry in my private profession. I will challenge them to look over anything; they can go through my files; they can dig out all my old sermons if they like, and I shall challenge them to find a single, solitary statement that I have ever uttered against our Jewish friends. As a matter of fact, if they take time to do it they will find many a sermon that I preached on their behalf.

I could write to the News-Herald, I suppose; but let them go to it; this is a free country, but let these men not be blamed when someone comes out and labels them for what they are. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, there are two classes of people in this country. There are those who love their country for what it is and for what they believe it can be made

Supply-External Affairs

into. There are others who love their country for what they can get out of it. What we need in Canada is men in public service who will not be afraid to spot the enemy and tell the people who they are. If they can survive it, all right, but woe betide the day when any man's mouth is going to be shut. They cannot do so today because our laws, in matters of democratic freedom, give a man the right to speak the truth. So they think they will shut his mouth by all sorts of smears. Well, let them go ahead and some of us will take it, but we will spot the enemy and name them, and if they can survive, all right.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my time is going. I got off the track a little bit there and I want to get on to the main track. I believe that the government, in combating this menace, must come clean on this issue in Canada. Let them not say, "We have no use for communism but we should like to see democratic socialism". I say that ultimately there is no difference.

I am not saying that these men are not good men. They are my friends. I am not saying that they are not good men, but what I am talking about is the idealism of what is known as democratic socialism. I say that you can preach against communism, and the communists do not mind that particularly. They have many parlour pinks to do their job for them. You can speak against democratic socialism, if you like. It does not make much difference; it is only a ripple on the water; but you name the birds that are trying to put it over and they will pop up immediately and say, "Oh, but these are very fine citizens".

Well, they may be law-abiding citizens, but that which they are proclaiming is the very antithesis of our democratic way of life, and instead of preserving our free institutions they will open the door for this evil thing to enter. And when the door is open, then it is too late. Let us make no mistake about that.

I now come to the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the socialist party in Canada. I have read it with considerable interest and scrutiny and I say that no communist intellectual could have given a better speech in this house. It is open for any man to analyse. Many terms are used which I believe to be merely oratorical platitudes. Democratic socialism is one. You cannot talk about a planned economy and freedom in the same breath. Let us make sure of that.

It is quite easy to repeat a lot of oratorical platitudes, but let us analyse them. You cannot plan freedom, because the very moment you plan freedom, freedom ceases to be freedom. Freedom is no longer freedom when it must run according to a plan.

Mr. MacINNIS:

Why are there so many laws to protect it, then?

Mr. HANSELL:

I must ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar one or two questions. I would not be so intent upon this if he had not given his speech in the name of his party and concluded by saying so. Let me quote what he said at page 3456 of Hansard.-.

But I do not think we should ever forget that the devastated and war-worn people of western Europe have realized that capitalism as we have known it in North America cannot be revived; for the destruction wrought by both war and the nazi regime scuttled capitalist ownerships in Europe, and indeed scuttled it also in parts of Asia.

Then he said we have to remember that no rehabilitation of the war-torn continent of Europe could be undertaken without the generous economic help of the United States.

Well now, if that makes sense to him it does not make sense to me. He wants capitalism, as we know it in North America, to be destroyed in Europe; and yet he said, let us not forget that the same capitalist country is the one that is coming to the aid of the other.

Again, he refers to Greece. When the leader of a party rises and speaks in this house I think he should make suggestions as to what he would do with the present situation, right here and right now. He went over past history. It is all right to say we would have done this a year or two ago and we would not have done that, but what does he want to do right now?

Here we have the situation as it is in Greece. Let me ask him this; If he were sitting on that side of the house would he withdraw support from Greece and permit communism to walk in there and destroy capitalism as it is in Greece? Let him say whether he would or not. Does he prefer communism in Greece to capitalism? If he does, then he would suggest that we withdraw our aid. If he does not, then we had better rush some more aid there, or that is surely what will happen.

He said something similar with reference to China. We have read a good deal about the regime of Chiang Kai-shek, and perhaps it is as bad as we have read. I do not know. We will grant that it is, for the sake of argument. But even though it is, would he withdraw support from China today under present conditions? Let him answer that. He does not answer it.

He makes these statements and they read well to those who never analyse them. Then he goes across the country as though he were some great statesman. My goodness I If he

Supply-External Affairs

withdrew support from Greece and China there would be two more nations that would become satellites of Soviet Russia.

Then he speaks of Palestine, and he speaks of it in terms suggesting that the united nations should have had an armed force ready to go there and implement its decisions by force. Very well. Let me ask him this question. Right now, in order to enforce the decision of the united nations in Palestine by putting an army in there, would he recommend that Canada conscript men for that army, or would he recommend that Canada should now put on a recruiting campaign to get forces to augment any force that the united nations might have?

If he is the leader of a party which is bidding for power to run the country, let him make his pronouncement on these three matters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to go a step farther. We have heard much in this debate about the issue between communism and democracy, about the possibility of one world and that possibility fading. We have heard that described. Let us get right down to absolute bedrock, fundamental language. It is all right to use the terminology "communism versus democracy". But the fight is one that involves more than that. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, the fight is between a materialistic atheism that is attempting to take hold of this world and rule God out of His own universe, and the Christian way of free men. That is the issue in the present world's cold war. Make no mistake about that. That is the issue, and we shall never understand it until we think of it in those terms. The forces of evil are not playing around somewhere; they are real. The forces of evil are not out on a midnight spree; they are out to wreck humanity in the process of overthrowing God from the earth which He Himself created. Their whole program being used today is the program of atheistic materialism which most people call communism.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

The hon. member has exhausted his time.

Mr. HANSELL:

I wonder if I could go on until six o'clock? Five minutes is not of much use to anyone.

Go ahead.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

Order. The hon. member's time is exhausted.

[Mr. Hansell.)

If the house consents to allowing the hon. member to continue, he may do so.

Go ahead.

Mr. HANSELL:

I say that is the vital issue. The line of demarcation is becoming more clear-cut all the time. Let us make no mistake about that. I know the Christian forces in the world have perhaps not been alive to the issues. I am a clergyman by profession, but I am quite certain that many clergymen in this country do not know that is the issue. I am confident that if the issue were actually known, such tremendous powers would arise in this country on behalf of the people that they would speak with a voice which was certain and would give new life, new vitality and strength to, shall I say, the all-conquering force of Christianity. The forces of Christianity have largely been rendered impotent. They do not need to be. One thing I am certain of is this. The Christian church is the very embodiment of the life of God Himself that cannot possibly fail. The difficulty is that in eventually succeeding we may find it necessary to go through terrible times of sacrifice, which I believe can be avoided.

I was happy to hear a minister talk about the re-vitalizing of our democracy. I am glad to hear it, but when are we to start? That is the thing. We had better start now. One of the ways of re-vitalizing democracy is to see that people are rendered free from fear of insecurity. I do not want to get on to another issue; but that is one thing which will prove to the rest of the world that a nation can have its economic security with its absolute and optimum freedom-no coercion, no unnecessary controls, none of this procedure that will take men's freedom from them, but one augmenting their freedom with a glorious security that this country is able to give. That is one thing that I think will be the answer to communism; and even that will not stop them; because if communism is what I think it is-and I believe it to be the embodiment of fiendish and evil forces; I am not saying that against men now, because, as I said the other day, men can be fooled into the thing-the communists are out for world domination; and why should they not be? For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers; against the rulers of the darkness in this world and against spiritual wickedness in high places. May we pray that the glorious victory will be ours.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Railivay Act

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Knowles moves,

seconded by Mr. Castleden, that Bill No. 6 entitled "An act to amend the Railway Act", be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Carried.

Mr. KNOWLES:

Carried.