difference that that foreign power is an allied power. The local communist party calls on the Australian government to support communist actions in Greece, Italy, Poland, Jugo-Slavia, and other countries. Now, you may say those disputes are only disputes between British and Russian foreign policy, and these countries are a long way off. Very well, then, take the Pacific. That is nearer home. For years to come there will be three great powers in the Pacific-Britain, America and Russia. Our fate depends on everything those three powers do. Should they disagree it means that all the power the communists can exercise in Australia will be exercised to get the Australian government to support the Russian policy, irrespective of whether it is to the advantage of Australia or to our detriment.
You may think we are too small to count. Well, what about your weekly wages, your home, your whole standard of living? How are they affected by the power of the communist party? Let me put this to you. The financial agents of all the leading countries are continually meeting to agree upon the financial system after the war. While there is yet no complete agreement there is general agreement that the scheme will be based on some modification of the gold standard. Russia supports America's claim of almost a full gold standard. After the war, Russia will want our goods to make good her war losses. How will she pay for them? There are only two ways.
One way is further to reduce the standard of living of her own people; the other way is to reduce the standard and cost of living in the countries from which she wants to buy her supplies. It is only common sense that she will prefer that the standards of the other countries be lowered rather than the standards of her own people. Under that arrangement the standards of living in Australia would have to be lowered.
When that comes about who is going to fight for the Australian workers and through them for the whole standard of living of the Australian people?
The Australian communist party will have to carry out the new policy of reducing the cost and standard of living in Australia. The unions will not fight for Australian workers because so many of the important unions are under communist control. If the present Curtin government is still there the communist policies of the post-war reconstruction department will not defend the standards; and if Menzies is there he will not fight either.
The communist party is just as much the agent of a foreign power as if the members themselves belonged to that nation. If you
would not put foreigners in charge of your government, and important positions in the community, you cannot afford to have members of the communist party in those positions.
That is the political picture of Australia as recorded by Mr. J. T. Lang, a former premier of New South Wales, a fearless and most able leader of Australian Labour.
And how do Mr. Lang's words apply to us? How does the Australian political situation compare with our own in Canada? The communist party has infiltrated all channels of publicity, such as newspapers and radio, the teachers' federation, the theatre and all avenues of education, instruction and entertainment, and the church. All these openly advocate communism and defend its policies.
What about the Liberals? Why does the communist party, now known as the Labour-Progressive party, support the Liberal party? One very good reason is the post-war reconstruction committee, appointed by the Liberal government. Listen to Dr. James, chairman of this Liberal committee for postwar reconstruction. He says:
I warn my listeners against the very dangerous propaganda which would have you believe that mankind is about to enter an age of plenty. The end of the war does not promise plenty for us. Canada must depend, not on the demands of the Canadian people, but to a greater extent than ever before on the world market.
Just as Mr. Lang says of Australia, Ottawa supported by the communist party, is planning to bring about an age of scarcity in Canada, for the benefit of foreigners, by means of the gold standard. Who is Doctor James, or rather what is his background? Doctor James was trained at the London School of Economics, which was founded fifty years ago by British socialists with money supplied by German international finance for the purpose of training the bureaucracy of the future world socialist state, to maintain the gold standard which, as Mr. Lang says, is supported by the Soviet government. Of course it is, because the gold standard means world control by compelling nations to lower their standards of living.
Not only Doctor James, but Doctor Marsh, Mr. Deutch and I believe Mr. Rasminsky, in fact most of Mr. Usley's key men, were trained at this same socialist school of economics, founded in the interests of "gold" and socialism. But, you say, Mr. Ilsley is the great Liberal-defender of orthodox finance and of the gold standard and, therefore, he
San Francisco Conference
must be opposed to socialism. Then wliv does he appoint socialist trained experts to plan Canada's future?
These Liberal-Communist planners were trained at the London School of Economics. One of its professors is H. J. Laski, who is one of the most influential socialists in the world to-day. Laski is the idol of the C.C.F. "brain-trust", and a confidential adviser to the New Dealers of the gold standard. Prof. Laski has written a book, for private circulation, from which I quote:
Christianity has failed, and the Russian ideal is taking its place as the inspiration of mankind, and as the standard of public morality. The Old Testament is the gospel of hard work, while in the New Testament the central figure of Jesus shows no concern for the workaday world. The trouble with Christianity is that it is subdued to nationalism.
So that our future is not to be based on Christian ideals; yet hundreds of religious leaders who call themselves Christians are subject to and working for Moscow because their faith in Christianity is dead; and it is these very men who believe that Christianity has failed-men trained by communists-who are planning the future of Canada. At the same time a rabid propaganda is being directed by certain religious leaders against the Christian religion, particularly Roman Catholicism, presumably because it is opposed to communism. Certain religious leaders are quoted by socialists and communists because they offer totalitarian philosophy as Christian democracy. Certainly these religious leaders have not uttered a single protest against the wholesale persecutions of people in recently liberated countries in eastern Europe. Will these religious leaders confirm or will they deny the persecution of political opponents by communists in Greece and elsewhere? Will they justify or will they condemn these political crimes? Dare they compare the freedom of religion, the press and politics in Russia with our own British freedoms? Do these religious leaders support or do they oppose the monarchy and the British empire? Do they agree with Professor Laski? Should we look to Russia for our ideals and moral standards? Have they lost their own faith and vision? Do they stand by the Atlantic charter? Are we fighting to preserve democracy or to create a totalitarian world? Are the gospels unreliable and unauthentic? Are we to follow Christian ideals according to the gospels, or communist doctrines according to Karl Marx?
Now what about Bretton Woods? My friends the hon. members for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and Acadia (Mr. Quelch) have stated their objections to the Bretton Woods proposals. I should like to add just one or two 32283-17J
statements of my own. I might say that I brought the matter up in a speech on this subject which I made in this house on July 12, 1943. On that occasion I quoted Mr. White, who was a member of the United States congress. He said, speaking of the plans:
Both contemplate the surrender by the individual countries to the international monetary power of a large part, if not all, of the very heart of national sovereignty, that is mastership over monetary and credit resources.
Section 8 of the constitution provides that congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. ... If Mr. Morgenthau and the forces back of him should he able to get around this provision of the constitution, then the last vestige of our great charter of liberty will have disappeared. All hope of restoring it would be gone, and the totalitarian state would be complete.
No, I cannot believe that the American people have as yet been beaten into such abject submission that they will allow this to happen.
Then recently a statement was made, I believe in the British House of Commons, and given to the English press, by Mr. Robert Boothby, M.P. I quote from the report in the London Evening Standard:
It was American big business, not the united nations, which won the great victory at Bretton Woods. For that agreement was a victory for gold over goods. And practically all the gold of the world is at present buried in the vaults of American banks.
If the House of Commons accepted Mr. Mor-genthau's advice and ratified the Bretton Woods agreement, it would deliver this country, bound hand and foot, to the money power represented by the vested interests of international finance.
It would prevent us from ever making any attempt at carrying out an internal expansionist policy designed to achieve full employment.
It would deprive us of all the weapons with which we could protect ourselves from the consequences of an American depression.
It would prevent us from developing the sterling area into a regional group of nations with similar economic interests and objectives, and a complementary trade-which is our greatest hope for the future.
Last, but not least, it would subject us permanently to the economic domination of the United States; for the whole basis of the agreement is in favour of the creditor, against the debtor nation.
Mr. Morgenthau gives the game away when he says he wants to increase his exports "provided his customers are in a position to find dollars to pay for them." We don't want to have to find dollars-which, under the Bretton Woods agreement, means finding gold. Still less do we want to borrow them. We want to pay for our imports with goods of our own.
Bretton Woods does nothing to help us to do this.
Always it is the same old story-this insane American passion for "exports". . . . The main purpose of trade is not to get goods out of your country at all at any cost. It is the mutually advantageous exchange of goods. If you cannot do this, it is far better to make, and consume, the stuff at home.
San Francisco Conference