September 5, 1950



On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

May I ask a question of the Minister of Finance? Is he yet in a position to tell the house whether or not any taxation changes will be proposed during the present session?


Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):

I expect that I shall have some proposals to make to the house when we move to go into committee of ways and means.




On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):

should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is consideration being given to the introduction of an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide for chemical tests and the like being allowed as evidence in connection with drunken driving charges?


Stuart Sinclair Garson (Solicitor General of Canada; Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):

We have one of the senior members of our staff considering this whole matter. He is not only going into it at considerable length himself, but he will also confer personally with the various proper officers of the provincial attorneys general departments in order to bring back a completely definitive statement on the whole matter. It is not possible that this statement will be back at the present session.




On the orders of the day:


Tom Goode


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):

I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Word has been received from the west coast which indicates that the salmon fishing on the Fraser river has been closed indefinitely. Would the Minister of Fisheries like to make a statement at this time?


Robert Wellington Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries)


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):

The sockeye salmon fishery is under the jurisdiction of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, and they are the people who would issue any such order. I did not understand that it was an order closing the salmon fishing indefinitely. However, I cannot give the hon. member a definite answer at the moment. Yesterday was a holiday; today we are endeavouring to get the information from our office in Vancouver. I shall give the hon. member a complete answer later, either today or tomorrow morning.




The house resumed, from Monday, September 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Charles Cannon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.


Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):

Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was coming to the point ini my remarks where I hoped to deal with the plea that we have made for a defence committee.

The responsibility of the private member in this house to his constituents is twofold. First, his responsibility is to see that the money voted) by this parliament is properly expended. But in the matter of defence he has a far greater responsibility, that of seeing to it that this country is properly defended.

The minister has a responsibility to the cabinet. Under our parliamentary system the decisions of the cabinet must be endorsed by the minister. Whether they may be right or wrong, it is his duty to approve and back them up. That is the principle of cabinet solidarity, and it is one of the parliamentary keystones of our democratic system. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the minister may or may not be right; the cabinet may or may not be right. On the question of defence the house is of course the final arbiter. In. the past there have been debates on defence in which we have been given less than scientific or accurate information. When defence was being considered on June 9 last, practically the only detailed information given us was a list of personnel at national

The Address-Mr. Adamson defence headquarters. The debate on that day started off on a high plane, but degenerated into something approaching a riot when a famous quotation from Shakespeare's Kinig Lear was used-hardly a useful or objective way of dealing with national defence.

I suggest that if we had the chief of the general staff, or the vice chief of the general staff, along with other experts, appearing before a select committee on national defence, we would be given factual information by those officers, instead of answers from the minister which he felt he must give to maintain the principle of cabinet solidarity. The responsibility for the decisions must in the final analysis be that of members of the House of Commons, particularly those who have served in the armed forces.

The question as to the regular Canadian army being solely an airborne army, a sort of agile home guard, would be the sort of question discussed. There are probably good reasons for it, but as yet they have not been stated in this debate. This would involve the policy of the present administration. Perhaps that policy is correct, but what are the alternatives? Was any consideration given to the formation of a force of ground troops, or having them in being should there be an outbreak of war? That question must have been discussed at some level, and the pros and cons investigated. Then there is the question of armour, the size of tanks and guns, and whether we are going to use the British or American tanks. These are some of the things the house should be told, and they should be discussed now. We should know whether we are going to use the United States Patton or the United Kingdom Centurion tank. These are not matters which should be decided hurriedly in an emergency, or concerning which snap decisions can be given, because that might involve giving wrong decisions. They are matters requiring careful consideration, and, may I add, consideration not in the political atmosphere of the House of Commons-although it is the final arbiter-tout rather in the technical atmosphere of a committee of the house.

During the summer, in company with other hon. members, I attended a demonstration of firepower at the Petawawa camp. When I asked why the main armour in the tank was not fired I was told that the ammunition was so old that it would be dangerous to use it. It seems to me utterly futile to carry out tank training unless the main weapon with which the tank is armed is to be used.

We then come to the question of the reserve army. The minister says that a fine season of training took place. Every commanding officer and most of the men with whom I have spoken have told me that their units went to camp shockingly under strength. What is the truth of the matter? What is the future role of the reserve army? This is something which could be discussed in a committee, and some decision arrived at. It is not a matter of politics; it is a matter transcending all politics, and one concerning the vital defence of this country.

I come now to the question of the F-86 and the Orenda engine. We have recently heard about the far more powerful Sapphire jet engine and the new Meteor. There should be discussion of these matters, and it is the responsibility of the people's representatives to consider whether it would be desirable now to Change the program and to produce the new aircraft, or whether such change would take too long and cost too much.

The question of submarines has already been discussed. The minister says it is not the policy of a small nation with a small navy to have submarines; that it would be uneconomical. Well, naval staff officers have told me that at least they are in disagreement with that policy. I do not know the answer, but definite opinions have been expressed to me toy certain people who should know. Yet the minister, who must back up the cabinet, says that Canada is too small to have submarines, that it would be uneconomical and improper for a navy as small as that of Canada to have a submarine division. Perhaps he is right, but let us not put this matter on a political basis. Whether we do or do not have submarines is not a political question, but one concerning the vital defence of this country, and one which should transcend political considerations.

We come now to artillery. What is our policy there? Are the industries of Canada to be making artillery co-ordinated with the American pattern, or are we to use the British type? These are questions which industries must be asking now. Certainly industries in my riding are asking them.

Then there is the question of the use of the absolute weapon. Are Canadians being trained in the use of absolute weapons, in the use of atomic weapons? If not, why not? If there is a general war I do not think any hon. member of this house will be foolish enough to believe that atomic weapons will not be used. It has been the historic role of Canadian troops to act as shock troops. If there is a general war, which

is the hideous possibility we must look forward to, these weapons will be used, and we may be asked to become part of the team that uses them.

Another matter to be considered is the training of mountain troops. The whole perimeter of the iron curtain countries is mountainous. We have found to our bitter sorrow in Korea that the troops that get to the top of the mountain, the troops that have the advantage of being able to fight m mountainous countries, are those who survive the nasty, dirty, ruthless slaughtering that is going on now in that country. '

General Sherman did not say, "War is hell." What he did say was, "War is all hell." The expenditures which we shall be asked to make are for destruction, hellish destruction, and there is nothing good we can say about them except that if we do not make them we lose our freedom. My plea for a defence committee is made so that members of this house who are responsible to the people will be able to go back to their constituents and say: Yes; the policy in this matter is correct, because the chiefs of staff or the experts in the defence department have given us the pros and cons; while it is not altogether satisfactory-no preparation for war can be entirely satisfactory-it is the best of the three or four possible courses that are open to us.

This, I repeat, is not a question of politics; it is something that transcends all party considerations. Each of us has responsibilities to his constituents; each of us has a responsibility to the country to see that our defences are kept up. I hope there will be no hon. member of this house who will begrudge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) anything he asks for in the way of defence. But unless we are informed, unless we can see that this is the proper thing to do, we shall be an uninformed assembly, and an uninformed assembly is not one which can fulfil its duty to its electors.

If we are called upon to fight a total war we shall have to fight with the utmost scientific ruthlessness. The house should be informed now of the preparations being made, and thus be prepared to act. If we do not do so, our whole life as Canadians comes to an end. We must fight now or crawl after.


Pierre Gauthier


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate without intending to reply to any of the speeches that have been delivered previously, but rather to express my opinion as plainly as possible as I did during the last war. I should like to quote what I said in a debate in this house on February 18, 1937, when we

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier were dealing with the question of increasing the national defence estimates. I quote from Hansard of that year, volume I, page 1003:

Mr. Speaker, every time a public man has to express an opinion or to advance a policy on a question of vital importance to his country, he must do it as fairly as possible. The satisfaction he may derive from seeing his name in all the papers, his concern about re-election, the more or less attractive reward that may be held out to him according to his attitude toward the party which he supports, in fact every personal consideration must give way to his duty as a representative of the people, and as a patriot.

I am glad to note that at this time those words have not created an outburst against the member for Portneuf. During the last war I took an altogether different position. I am sorry to say that at that time I had to leave my good friends whom I fought most bitterly. I fought against Mr. Lapointe, Mr. Cardin, and all the others. Fortunately after the war was over I was taken back into the ranks. I still respect the opinions of all, and especially of those who have spoken previously in this debate.

I had made a pledge at the time the second world war took place, and I lived up to it although it was hard to do so. I felt I was being logical. I did not believe in the policy adopted by my party, and I crossed the floor of the house and fought that policy from the other side. Today I agree with the opinion of my leader and my friends in the Liberal party.

I listened closely last night to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche). I respect his opinions. He said that he was voicing the opinions of his electors. I was surprised when he said that he was expressing the views of the great majority of the people of the province of Quebec, because that is a rather large territory for one hon. member to cover. When I heard quotations read from what Mr. Cardin, Mr. Lapointe and Mr. King had said, I must tell you, sir, that I asked myself what the position of these men would be if they were still here, knowing them as well as I knew them and as well as most hon. members knew them. I am most sceptical that they would take a position against Canada fighting external wars, especially in a fight against the communists, who want to destroy the faith of those free men; and their faith was great.

I was against fighting external wars before, but so far as communism is concerned I have been advocating measures against it for the past fifteen years. To be logical I can do nothing else but ask the government to go ahead and fight communism by the use of military, moral or spiritual weapons.

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier

Last session I listened attentively, as I always do, to a speech delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). There were smiles on the faces of some members when he spoke about communist imperialism. I think he was quite right. I am going to quote from the writings of a man whose works most hon. members must have read, Karl Marx, on the subject of Russian imperialism, the Russian ideal of expansionism. In a dispatch to the New York Tribune on June 14, 1853, Karl Marx said:

Russia keeps claiming that it has no annexationist designs. In order to ascertain the hypocrisy of this claim, it is sufficient to review the annexations carried out by Russia since the time of Peter the Great. Territories extracted by Russia from Sweden are larger than the present possessions of that country. The conquests from Poland form an area nearly as large as Austria.

It is the same thing now.

Territories which Turkey had to cede to Russia in the Balkans are identical to the area of Prussia.

No one can say that Russia is not invading European as well as Asiatic territory at the present time.

What they obtained in Asia from Turkey is as large as Germany. Their acquisitions from Prussia are comparable to the area of Great Britain.

In another dispatch to the Tribune on the 12th of April, 1853, he says something that is a lesson to western civilization. I read:

The cowardice and stupidity of the western nations provide Russia with opportunities.

That is still true today.

Due to their ignorance, western statesmen are losing control of the situation. Jealousies are their perdition. Whatever they do benefits Russia . . .

That is still true today. In another dispatch to the Tribune Karl Marx deals with the danger of Russian aggression. He said:

The vital interests should render Great Britain the earnest and unyielding opponent of the Russian projects of annexations and aggrandizement.

When Mr. Attlee allowed the war industries of Great Britain to manufacture weapons for Russia, I wonder if he thought of that, or if he has ever read what Karl Marx had to say on that particular subject. Marx continued:

England cannot afford to allow Russia to become the possessor of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus. Both commercially and politically such an event should be a deep, if not deadly blow, at British power. Let Russia once come into possession of Constantinople ... in that case the Black sea would be a Russian lake . . . Trebizond would be a Russian port, the Danube a Russian river.

The Danube is now a Russian river.

But having come thus far on the way to universal empire, is it probable that this gigantic and swollen power will pause in its career?

I think Karl Marx was speaking the truth. If he were sending dispatches to the

IMr. Gauthier (Portneuf).)

Tribune today he would be obliged to say the same thing so far as communist imperialism and expansionism are concerned. We should not be sceptical in our stand toward the step taken by the Canadian government in Korea at the present time, knowing that, for centuries, expansionism, under czarist as well as under communist Russia, has been the policy of that large and manpowerful country.

I have here a resume of chapter 36 of a book written by George W. Keeton, a specialist in Asiatic questions. The book is entitled "China, The Far East and the Future." The resume is still too long for me to read it all. I may say to the house that from 1567 Russia has followed the same policy under the czars and the communists right up to the present time. Under the czars a powerful military establishment was developed on both banks of the river Amur. It is now well developed and protected, and Russia is not far from having all the Asiatic powers in its firm hold.

That is one of the main reasons why, standing in this house, I take the position of urging the government to go ahead with its policy of intervention in the Korean conflict, and I ask parliament to vote the necessary moneys so that our navy, army and air force can fight communism in Korean and other Asiatic countries. I repeat that I am an anticommunist, both in peace and in war; therefore to take a different stand would be inconsistent with the position I have taken for the last fifteen years. I cannot do it.

During the course of the debate I heard one member cast doubt on whether the aggression was from North Korea. I have a document in my possession entitled "Canada and the Korean Crisis", and on page 16 it is well established that there was aggression by North Korea. In a cablegram from the United Nations commission on Korea to the Secretary General of the United Nations, dated June 25, 1950, there is the following:

Government of Republic of Korea states that about 04:00 hrs. 25 June attacks were launched in strength by North Korean forces all along the 38th parallel.

This has not been, denied. It has been confirmed in all the press dispatches we have been able to secure from the inception of the conflict.

I would refer the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) to the August, 1950, issue of Relations, where he could read "Conditions Internationales", by Father Ledit, who I believe is an expert on international affairs. He said that on June 10 three representatives of the Patriotic Front of United Korea-which he translates to mean three communists of North Korea, whose

names he gave-went to see the United Nations commission on Korea to present an address from the "patriotic front". That was June 10; those three members of the communist front crossed the frontier and were arrested two days later by the military forces of South Korea. In that document the hon. member will see that the North Koreans were asking that the established government of South Korea be done away with. In other words they were following the line of the communist chiefs, the line of the communist international, so far as the overthrow of democratic government is concerned. This is another reason for believing there really was an aggression, because Father Ledit may be considered a specialist in international affairs.

Then I would refer the hon. member to Father Sauve, who is a specialist on communist affairs in this country, and who, according to Le Droit of August 28, 1950, had this to say:


Our statesmen now realize that it is necessary to face up to the men of Moscow. The steps they are taking today should have been taken twenty years ago when the communist regime had already revealed its ambitious aims clearly and unequivocally. Pope Pius XI, in 1925, wrote an encyclical letter in which he cautioned the world against the atheism of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Governments paid no heed to his warning but sank deeper into their state of lethargy while Moscow, taking advantage of the universal political unconcern, kept driving forward the plow of revolution drawn by hatred and violence. The furrow plowed so far is incredibly deep. How can we react against the swift rise of communism? In the spiritual field, the Fatima message has shown us how we can win God's mercy: in the economic field, relations between capital and labour must take into account the real character of man; in the social field, Christian charity, that strict precept of the Gospel, must again come first. The struggle between charity and hatred is now raging for the conquest of mankind. The church relies on all her sons to guarantee the triumph of the Gospel precepts and to give the world the peace it so badly needs.


It is evident, and has been proved many times, that communism wants to destroy belief in the existence of God; yet we would remain silent because otherwise we must send help outside the country. They want to overthrow our institutions by force; yet we would let them expand their authority in the world. I repeat that logic does not work that way. The leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition (Mr. Drew) in this house is supporting intervention in Korea. I do not see how the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) can oppose such intervention as firmly as he did last evening and then go 69262-171

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier out during the next elections, be they byelections or general elections, and ask the people'of his county to support a candidate endorsed by the present leader of the opposition. That would be a flagrant contradiction.

I respect the opinion of the hon. member and that of his electors, but I doubt that he states a fact when he says he expresses the opinion of a large majority of the people of Quebec.

I remember one thing, Mr. Speaker. During the last war Tim Buck was speaking against the imperialist war before Russia was attacked by Hitler. As soon as Russia was attacked, however, he began to tell the people, and especially the French Canadians- I still have extracts from speeches he made- that they should fight the war of the common man now that Russia was attacked. I should not like to receive praise tomorrow morning in the Tribune of Toronto, following my speech today. I will not say I did not receive praise from those people when I was opposing participation in any external war, during the last great war. I did not like that praise; I would not like it today, and I hope I shall not receive any support from those who want to overthrow our institutions. As a member of the Bloc Populaire I remember that we received visitors urging us to go ahead with our policy. We did not know they were communists, but we knew it later, because after Russia was attacked we no longer had those visitors; they were busy asking the people to fight the war of the common man. I do not want to have them visit me tomorrow and ask me to fight against intervention in Korea. I want to fight communists everywhere and anywhere I can find them. I have a boy who is of age to go to war, and I know what it is to send a boy to war, even though it is within my own country. I know my boy would not hesitate to enlist as soon as he is through with his studies, which will not be more than another six months. I know that he, like his father, will be ready to fight communism anywhere.

But let us come back to the real problem. It is all very well to fight communism with armaments, but the real problem lies in man himself. What we need more is moral rearmament. Man scarcely knows where he is going. How can society be expected to behave properly if the individual does not know what he wants? Charity and justice have almost disappeared from the minds of individuals. How can society revalue these necessary virtues and expect the world to think and act soundly? To be kind to the poor is charity, but to be respectful of your neighbour, in mind, thought and deed, is charity as well. To give your neighbour his

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier due is charity also. Society and the nations of the world will follow if the individual is charitable. I believe "justice" is the most distorted and disfigured word in our language at the present time. It is said to be a part of life, but as soon as one's interests are at stake, it fades away. How can society and nations be just, being composed of unjust individuals? The Far East has been exploited in the past. Lack of charity and justice has been the main defect of those unscrupulous trading companies coming from western countries in order to exploit-and I use the word advisedly-those Asiatics. That has been going on for a little too long a time. It is a good thing that we have missionaries whose charity and justice tempered the ill feelings of the Asiatics. If they had received more help, and if their representations had been given longer and better consideration, the feeling would have been a great deal better among the Asiatic people. Much more in our favour was the fact that justice was unknown there. Nationalism has been developed and has been extremely strong in China and other Asiatic countries. Russia knows it and she is acting accordingly; and she has been so acting all the way through toward this goal, namely to get the support of Asiatic nationalism in order to extend her power in this part of the world.

I have here an article by John Roderick. He says that Russia knows that nationalism is the strongest Asian force. He says this:

Russia is riding the bandwagon of a force in Asia that is more immediately powerful than communism. That force is nationalism . . .

For the last one hundred years or more, millions of yellow and brown people in Asia have known nothing but white masters. They are now engaged in a titanic struggle to break the shackles of European domination.

In doing so, they are asking the outside world only one question: "Are you for us or against us?"

Events which will fill many pages of future history books have taken place in Asia in recent years:

1. India, a subcontinent of 389 million poorly fed, inadequately housed poeple, was given its independence from Britain.

2. China, whose 450 million coolies, peasants and intellectuals form the biggest population chunk of Asia, threw off a monarchy, adopted a republic and now has come under communist rule.

3. The Philippines obtained independence from the United States.

And if the United States and the democratic world do not pay enough attention to the Philippines at the present time, civil war will soon develop.

4. Indonesia, one of the richest areas on earth, became a sovereign state bound by tenuous ties to her former three-hundred-year-old master, The Netherlands.

5. Japan, once the aggressive leader and would-be boss of all these peoples, was reduced through war to the status of a minor power.

Countries which have failed to shrug off colonialism, like French Indo-China and British Malaya, have plunged into bloody internal revolutions . . .

Into this situation, the Soviet union has cunningly and effectively intruded. It has loudly announced that it is on the side of Asiatic nationalism.

Until a few years ago, almost no Asiatic state paid much attention to the Russian bear's advances.

Two years ago, this writer undertook extensive travels in the Far East. Almost no one he met, big or little, looked with anything but repugnance at the idea of an Asia tied to the apron strings of Russia.

We now have our way before us. We know where Asia stands. We know what nationalism means in Asia. We must face the situation. We must give to the ill-fed and ill-managed people of Asia every opportunity to have a decent standard of living, to be treated as common people, and to have security. Not only social security, about which too many words have been spoken, but moral, intellectual and spiritual security is what they need at the same time. They eat, but at the same time they think, and we must make them think in the proper way. We must make them believe that there are friends in the western civilization who are ready to work with them and for them.

I repeat that moral rearmament will go on for ever. Let us hope that when man has found himself once more, has found out what he is and ought to be, Christianity will hold the lead for ever. But man has to find himself. He has to find himself in another way. As the communist finds himself following only the morals of the party, everything is permitted as long as it gives the party an advantage in any domain, whether it be moral, spiritual, economic, or political. A communist knows how harmful to democratic people are certain immoral literature and movies. He knows by experience, and I repeat this, that the flow of divorces in democratic countries is harmful to our families; and he knows that families count in the building up of a strong democratic people. How can we fight victoriously if we do not improve?

Materialism is everywhere around us. Let me quote from memory the words of the late Mr. King, a couple of days before he died. He said this to one of his friends: If I were young, do you know what I would do? I would be impelled to go out and to crusade against the materialism which has fallen so much upon us at the present time. That is what Mr. King said. When my friend quoted Mr. King the other day, I was asking myself if he knew of those words. Working and crusading against materialism is a part of our intervention in Korea at the present time.

We are little by little constantly carried along by materialism. We have not noticed it. We are seduced because of its appeal to the senses, and when the senses are not strengthened by faith, they have not the same meaning and the same power. As Monsignor Sheen says, as long as decent people refuse to believe that morality must manifest itself in every sphere of activity, including the political, they will not meet the challenge of communism. That means that the morality of the individual must manifest itself at the same time and in the same manner, whether the individual be a politician or be engaged in some other walk of life. R. H. Tawney, in "The Acquisitive Society" said this:

The modern world has no cement to bind together personal morals and morals of political and economic life.

As my concluding words, Mr. Speaker, let me say that that cement is hope, faith, charity and justice.


September 5, 1950